But what fascinates me is how many reviewers lay credit (or blame) at Steven Spielberg’s feet. Yes, the man is the director (and in an auteur universe, the director is all), and he’s as much of a draw as star Harrison Ford and producer George Lucas. (And I can remember, when “Raiders of the Lost Ark” came out in 1981, Lucas was the main draw - Harrison Ford was a “Star Wars” supporting actor, and Spielberg, though championed as the man who directed “Jaws” and “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” was coming off the flop “1941.”)

Anyway, I’d say Spielberg is the reason “Crystal Skull” works as well as it does. What other director could pull off the opening game of chicken with such effortless suspense - and over the credit sequence, yet? Who else could handle that nuclear ghost town sequence with such wit?

No, I’d say the movie’s problems (and a chunk of responsibility for those problems) lie with the script (by David “Mission: Impossible” Koepp) and - yes - Lucas, who wanted to do something along the lines of “Indiana Jones and the Martians from Mars.”

Lucas may know his action tropes, but Harrison Ford had him right during the production of “Star Wars” when he said, “George, you can type this [crap], but you sure as hell can’t say it.” When the pulp overwhelms the wit in “Crystal Skull,” the film feels like what Lucas probably had in mind. What Lawrence Kasdan or Philip Kaufman could have done with this material!

Howdy!How are you? It's good to know that you are still around this website. How did the last Google update affect your site? Just checked your rankings and it seems like you are doing a good job If there will be any problems be sure to get back to me, al

Hey! Great stuff, please do keep me posted when you post again something like this!

bugs engulfing a body? check
pyramid in a forgotton valley? check
temple that collapses? check
...in a swirl of CG? check
...taking the whole hidden valley with it? check
Escaping at the top of a shaft that has filled with water? check
mercenary who only looks out for money? check
..who never gets past the room of relics? check
..who dies during the temple's collapse because of his greed? check
relic that keeps away the bugs? check
..and the 'natives'? check
...and activates something in the pyramid? check
father, mother, son, all in the pyramid? check
jungle fight with darts? check
...and swinging vines? check

Since when have movies stopped being entertainment for people? Some of these posts seem to treat the Indy films as some sort of life-or-death tipping point!

These are fantastic rollercoaster rides; when I heard the whip crack and saw the fedora, I was 12 years old again! Many thanks to Spielberg, Lucas and Ford for bringing Indy back.

Those of you who are so twisted up in the mythology of Indy, Star Wars and the like, to declare war over a film are nuts. Take your "creative differences" and stow them in an unmarked crate in a New Mexican warehouse. Leave the rest of us out of it.

The movie was a dissapointment to me. The best parts though were the nuclear testing scene –awsome and the opening sequence with the car scene, and the waterfalls. The whole aliens and flying saucer theme was horrible. 90% of the film was an insult to my intelligence. Advanced species comeing to earth in the distant past teaching humans agriculture, canal contolling waterways, come on! This reminds me of Chariots of the Gods! Also–why would an advanced species look so much like us in terms of being bipedal,upright, 2 eyes , one mouth, carbon based....it doesnt add up. The chances that a species would evolve similar to humans is 1 in a 100 billion.
Anothe BIG flaw-having a lil bit of knowledge about ancient Mesoamerica. (it so happens to be my "area of interest"). The film showed the Aztec calender stone no fewer than 3 times throughout the film. ( it is from early 16th century) a few minutes later we see structures from classical Mayan , 200 BC , followed by Late Mayan /Toltec figures. It truly was annoying. And why the heck would they be located in the middle of the amazon jungle???!!!
In Nazca, again the builing on the hill was Mayan –not South American –no resemblence of Nazca or any other South American cultures. Yes in did get the fact that these "aliens" collected artwork –that explains what we saw in the structures, but not the structures themselves. Its like saying the empire state building in NY was built by trhe early dutch settlers or that the Capitol Building in DC was built by the ancient Romans. (get my drift). Its stupid and again i say its an insult to one's intelligence. Does anyone else see this? Please respond to this , i would love to hear feedback.

The recent Indiana Jones movie is simply subconsciously preparing the masses for the inevitable return of the alien beings who not only jumpstarted our technology, but actually created us through genetic engineering ("created in God's – read ETs – image"). Kudos to the visionaries Lucas and Spielberg.

Lets face it Lucas has Aliens on the brain. I enjoyed the movie and my son, whose 10, loved it. We both agreed however that the whole alien slant was a bit much. Lucas would have been better served if he had stayed with the real life mythology of the crystal skulls.

The thing about the previous films was how they took real stories and myths and made them into an entertaining adventure. If Lucas had done the same here and left the Alien angle to the sci fi films this would have seriously rocked as another Indiana Jones film.

I liked it and, unlike many others, I think that Shia could carry on the series. As long as he has better scripts and they get back to archeology and leave the aliens where they belong. On X-Files.

As far as ranking it goes it ranks dead last among the indiana Jones films but still entertaining none the less.

I grew up living for all things Star Wars and Indiana Jones...they were the closest things to magic I've ever experienced. But I wish Lucas would just retire and count his money. While I really enjoyed the film, the parts that irked me have George written all over them. I pray he does not move ahead with his "Son of Indy" iplans, or he will ruin the franchise for me as surely as he has ruined Star Wars

I was extremely dissapointed with this movie. I had high expectations for an Indy movie and it just did not stand up. I'm a sci-fi fan, don't get me wrong, love all the alien stuff too but just not in this movie. Indiana jones was more for relics of real history, not aliens. I thought the twist of it being of alien power just really ruined the movie for me. I mean, yes, it had the normal Indy action which was good. But I wish they would have left the Sci-Fi Aliens out of it. Seriously. I wanted a good ole-fashioned Indiana Jones movie, instead I got Indiana Jones vs. Martians from Mars.

And, wasn't that scene of treasure all at the end just a little to just like the scene from National Treasure?

Perhaps you, like I, were slightly confused by the "Close Encounters of Indiana Jones" story?

And, you're exactly right about Harrison Ford seeming completely bored throughout the film....and, yes, how did he agree to a script/story like this in the first place?

The only thing wrong with the spaceship...ufo....whatever you want to call it.....is that it has no place in the series. For staunch fans like my brother and I, who have been waiting with baited breath for years for this fourth installment, it was a REAL disappointment.

The Indy movies are like childeren. You have your favorites but, love them all. The day will come soon when Harrison, will hang up his whip forever, "this may be the film" we need to enjoy watching him while we still have the chance.

As a general rule, If the theater critics hate a movie. I have to see it. I have seen all the James Bond,Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Rambo moves at least three times each. I go to the moives to cool off in the summer time, Eat Popcorn and be entertained. Entertainment is what movies are about. I believe the cast was well picked the story as believeable as the others. My only though out the opening was I thought that the huge warehouse full of all the stuff was somewhere in DC not the desert. The fire was there just like before between Harrison Ford and Kate Kapshaw. My 17 year old son and I loved it
and Yea when it comes out on DVD I will be first in line to buy it.

From Star Wars to Indiana Jones, Lucas and Co. have given us fun and fantastic escapes! That's what going to the movies should be about. If you want "real life" , stay at home. As for me, I welcome
the diversion, and it doesn't hurt that my little grandson loves them all too, and thinks its cool that I know all about the movies and characters.

This movie is not meant to be taken so literally. Past Indy films were also full of action, myths and magic that made them highly entertaining. Granted it had some sci-fi to it, but it still stayed true to original story telling style which makes Indiana. In my opinion, this film was entertaining to watch and nostaligic to see Indy back in action. It shouldn't be taken literally 😀 As a past comment mentioned above, which Indiana story was based on reality?

The First Indiana Jones films were about Archaeology and Religion. Mystical things would happen, but you would never make fun because it blended faith and science extremely well.

This Indiana Jones is Science Fiction. You can make fun of science fiction. The characters are great – the alien plot was just stupid since it was not believable. What would you believe – a medieval Knight kept alive by God and the Cup of Youth, or an Alien who had knowledge of the Universe... I'd rather believe in God than an alien.

It's shocking to me that anyone thought that this movie was good. It was terrible! Aliens don't belong in an Indiana Jones film! Nothing about the movie was even the slightest bit believable, not even Harrison Ford's acting. The storyline was random and wasn't cohesive "I hate you." Next scene – "I love you. Let's get married." Everything about it was predictable other than exactly how bad the movie turned out to be. I want my time and money back.

Awful. I blame this mess on George Lucas who hasn't been involved with a good script in almost 30 years. He has totally and completely lost it. Little green men? Puh-lease. The premise, the acting the contrived situations. Did anyone else notice a similarity between the Return of the Jedi chase through the forest on the Ewok planet and the jeeps driving through the jungles of this movie? Tripe. The worst one of the bunch. Two thumbs way down.

The movie was a disappointment. I don't know who is "to blame," but I can't believe how crummy the CGI stuff was and how poorly the script seemed to fit with the characters. Is it just me or did H. Ford seem disenchanted?

I can honestly say this movie was the worst I have ever seen. I would rather watch Phantom Menace for 24 hours straight. The computer graphics were too prevalent. The CGI groundhogs making cute faces in the first 5 minutes really sets the stage for this film. Harrison Ford says a JOhn Wayne style one liner about every five minutes. The Russian costumes were always clean. Indiana Jones was clean most of the time. The love story was unbelievable between Karen allen and Harrison Ford and was actually kind of gross to watch. In a real Indy movie, he probably would have messed around with the Russian lady. the alien climax was poorly done. The beginning had a few moments of Speilberg style moviemaking in some of the chase scenes, but all the CGI, bad acting and George Lucas consistantly reminding hte audience of his past films with little cameo scenes was just offensive to watch. I have baaad feeling about this...and their is even a scene from Phantom Menace in there I guess for nostalgia for that "great" film. terrible waste money.

For anyone who is old school and remembers the true essence of cool, the movie was great. Movies are an escape not reality. It was fun; it was new; it was old. It was Indy. People take themselves and their $9 ticket egos too seriously. For me it made me feel like a kid again when my parents were the only security I needed. Few things can bring me back to those cherished earlier moments of life.

I liked it, but knew coming in that the years and the anticipation of another Indy film would be greater than the final product (like the Star Wars prequels). First, you have to accept that it wouldn't be better than 'Raiders'. Then you have to accept that Lucas said it'd be a little more sci-fi fifties stuff.

I agree that some things were too over the top or silly – the prairie dogs (reminded me of Jar Jar), the swinging Tarzan scene, the ants scene, the spaceship. A little too much CGI for me. I think Lucas' dialogue is what kills a lot of people.

I thought it was a little inconsistent though. I liked the opening sequence, marveled at the thought of "Colonel Jones" (Indy being in the OSS during WWII), and enjoyed scenes like the diner fight and motorcycle in the library. I thought the scene with the natives had potential but was blown. They never explained the little men jumping around in the cemetary. They didn't develop Marian enough or Cate Blanchett's character. And Lucas is a sucker for car racing scenes (ie: 'Grafiti', 'Phantom Menace'), so why should we not expect to see two vehicles racing (the jungle sequence).

I agree with that sometimes as we grow older we have a tendency to lose some of the imagination that we had as children, which explains why so many kids enjoyed it more than their parents. All in all, I think it's a fine movie, but you just can't expect it to be another 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.

When I first heard that Indiana Jones was coming back I was skeptical because I doubt that they (Lucas and Spielburg) would hold true to the Indy movies. I think the story line and the characters did stay true however there is one thing that just destroyed it for me. I hated that there was CGI or whatever you call it in almost every scene and it honestly made the movie look fake. Personally, the book by James Rollins is one of the few things that saves it for me and I recommend it to anyone that is willing to spend a couple of days actually enjoying all what this movie could have become.

This movie reminds me of this old guy I saw at the club one night dressed in tight polyester pants and a colorful polyester shirt who obviously thought he was the shizzz. Maybe in the 70s, but this 2008!

Total garbage.
Everything is forced. The comedy. The acting. The plot. Even the editing is laughable. Indiana Jones or not, it's a horrid movie. I resent giving my hard earned cash for this mess. I agree with poster above, George Lucas needs to focus on being a grandpa and stay out of film. Everyone else involved with the POS, you should be embarrassed.

The movie was a big letdown. I mean the minute the spaceship burst out from underground I immediately flashed back to the X-Files movie, and wondered where the hell has Mulder & Scully been for 2 hours? I mean Harrison Ford was fine as well as the other sidekicks, but Aliens? I mean come on! This series has always been about religious iconism and treasure hunting. Not mind control from Magneto! I rank 1 & 3 equally then 2 and 4 dead last. UGH!

I agree with the meta-scores and say it deserves around a 70%. It could have been closer to 85 or higher except for one thing.

SPOILER WARNING.

That one thing was the inclusion of aliens. I thought the rest of the movie was great and very true to the whole Indy francise, and I liked the way they handled Indy aging and the fact that Marion looked her age. I like Mutt too. Hell, I thought all the characters and the action and the story were well done, until the end.

The aliens thing just wasn't true to Indy form. Yes, I know there are people who suggest that it was an alien intelligence that had something to do with those Amazon landmarks and all that, but I still see this as an unwelcome departure from Indy's more historic/archeological/religious themes.

Alien conspiracy theories mame me think about geeks in their basement who hang out on chat rooms talking about Area 51.

The story really fell down in this area. They should have stayed true to original Indy themes, in my opinion.

Still, it was worth seeing, and I'll definitely get it on BluRay when it comes out.

People like to complain about Lucas and his movies, and even thought here are large chunks of the Episode I that really should have been cut, and the movie would be passable, the first 3 episodes are still fun movies to watch with enough dialogue and story to keep them interesting, and only a few places where you really wish the movie screen had a fast forward.

The thing is, Lucas isn't out to make money, he is out to make movies. He wants to make movies he likes, and hardly cares if anyone else does. He is also a good businessman, which makes some of his choices confusing. But regardless, he has only ever setout to make movies that bring back the joy he felt watching saturday morning matinees as a kid. He also became obsessed with bringing special effects up to a level where he could bring every image he had in his head on the screen.

He can do that now, but now he needs help keeping some of his ideas off the screen. But all in all, they are still a fun way to pass the time. He never set out to make a cinematic classic.

Ok, it´s just a film. I agree.
But I´m afraid it should have been called "Indiana Jones and the girlfriend, and the son, and the rest of his pals, and the kingdom of the crystal skull". I miss the fact that he is a lonely guy, he does what HE does, and sometimes he´s helped. Why is he being followed by all those people in this film ALL THE TIME?

And, by the way... It wasn´t really a kingdom, neither was the stuff crystal...

Whoo! Yes. Some people got the Mummy refrence! I also agree with the movie starting strong and ending WEAK. So much potential and it just fizzeled out. Just didn't didn't have the magic all the way thru. (Though the refrigerator scene -nice touch.)
Cate Blanchett character coulded ended/developed so much better.
Kinda guess what/who was all through the picture. A fun picture to go see- been to worse....much worse with more high praise.

Folks, the movie was highly entertaining. You have to remember that when we first saw an Indiana Jones movie we were just kids. I thought the movie was fun and so did my kids, 13 and 10. They had never seen an Indiana movie so I rented all three a few days before going to see the latest. They LOVED all of them and wanted more. What it's all about, IMAGINATION!

I saw this yesterday, and I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the film, but it could have been much better in many respects.

There was just so much stuff going on in the film that it was hard for you to keep up: Indy's son, Indy is blacklisted, Marion in the movie without a lot of a part, John Hurt's crazy guy, aliens, Russians. Very enjoyable, just an assault on the mind.

Having said all this, the number one problem with this movie (as with many nowadays) was its use of CGI effects. You're asking the audience to suspend its disbelief already with an alien-centric plot, but convoluting it with CGI at every opportunity makes it even less believable to the audience! Imagine if Last Crusade had been done with CGI--it would have been less of a movie in the minds of moviegoers for sure! On top of that, the CGI was terrible! In an era where CGI can look so good (Star Wars, Pixar stuff, etc.) they made it look fake and unbelievable. I continue to wonder why the advances of today can't make CGI look as good now as it did in its primitive stages when Jurassic Park was made in the early 90s.

With all of this, it is clear that there is a place for traditional stunt and effects work--Stan Winston should have been doing the alien effects in this film, which would have made it much more believable.

Also, to anyone saying George Lucas can't write, let's remember he wrote the original Star Wars script, which was amazing and timeless in and of itself. Maybe he's rusty, I don't know. The movie was good, but not great.

I keep reading other posters saying that this movie was 'entertaining'. And my response is, did we see the same movie? Because I was bored. And so were all the folks in the theater that saw it on opening night. No laughing, no applause – just shock and dismay from everyone leaving the theater.

In the past IJ films, the villains always posed a significant threat. In this one, we have Indy more than happy to work along with the Russians, until Mutt gets things going again.

The double-triple-agent guy didn't add anything to the film, except for being annoying. IJ would have never let him tag along.

Sorry, Lucas and co. This movie was WEAK. Stiff acting and incoherent plot were my biggest gripes. It's time to hang up the fedora and move on...

I found this movie pretty fun. The things that annoyed me the most was the extremely exaggerated nuke explosion (how the fridge flew about 6 miles and Indy comes out not goo). And the ants. I know the movie was trying to mimick 50's B-movies which anyone who doesn't get that is retarded but I still don't feel it was much of a great idea in the first place.

Its obvious that Spielberg and Lucas have become a bit senial in their old age - I mostly blame it on Lucas but Spielberg had his hands on it, plus with his recent crap-piece War of the Worlds its apparent he is no longer a great director but just a nice name to throw on your movie release poster, anything he craps out becomes instant box-office success.

I rank this movie 3rd of four in order of 2nd,1st,4th,3rd - the third one was terrible, I liked the comedy elements in the second one.

KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL was above average as a film, but definitely not up to the standards of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, and IJ AND THE LAST CRUSADE. The fault does not lie with Harrison Ford though, who played his character just perfectly. The script let him down though. The vine-swinging scene was ridiculous. The movie slowed down for five minutes while Ford and Shia discussed the history of the Crystal Skull. Karen Allen didn't have much to do, and with a few notable exceptions there was not as much humor as before. The CGI on some scenes was too unbelievable. They should have stuck with stuntmen working on actual cars and sets. Having said that, I still really enjoyed the film. The lighting, set design and editing were still top-notch. It was like seeing an old friend after 20 years.

I'm an archaeologist and love these movies (even though they represent archaeology much differently from how it really is). The first half of the movie was great, complete with some one-liners that only archaeologists might get! But I became very detached at the extremely lame "tarzan" scene–even I can't suspend my disbelief for that sort of swill. Nevertheless, the movie was fun summer entertainment.

I saw it and loved it. I thought it was a hoot and I savored every minute of it.

I did not go in the theater expecting Hemingway. I also did not expect the movie to cure the common cold or bring world peace. It's just a movie. Period.

I thought this new installment kept the series' Saturday morning serial feel, and I also thought that having the alien, cold war theme was perfect for the 1950's. Perfect.

I loved Karen Allen coming back as Marion. I always thought she was the best woman for Indy, so I was happy as a damn clam.

I don't know why anyone ever wants to do sequels. It's just asking to have your work trampled and your heart ripped out by complete strangers. People always expect some kind of perfection and they are never going to get it.

Personally like someone said above, I just checked my brain at the door and enjoyed and I am so glad I did.

Love the series but I felt Mr. Speilberg 'jumped the shark' 2 times in this movie. 1. Our Hero does not need to escape a nuclear blast by traveling half a mile in the air via household appliance. The nuke scene was unnecessary and did not tie into the plot. 2. Our Hero and friends do not need to survive completely unscathed 3 dangerous trips over water falls. Once would have sufficed. These 2 scenes do not work well in a regular guy action film. I know I have to suspend belief in a movie such as this. In other action movies where the Hero is a Spiderman or a Superman you understand the physical conditions of survival placed on the non human body. When 60 year old Indiana Jones is surviving these other worldy beatings in action scenes it is almost 'Road Runner and Cyote' like and looks stupid. Big detraction from an otherwise solid movie.

On the "ludicrous" scale, this one is off the charts. Oh, I understand suspension of disbelief and all that, but come on. This screened like what a 10 year old amateur would do if given the chance.

The situations are preposterous, the dialog beyond stupid. The "Boris-and-Natasha-from Bullwinkle" villain is utterly ridiculous. The story itself is like a quagmire of 50's-era-atomic bomb hysteria, Roswell, Area 51, Amazon jungle and El Dorado all thrown into a blender.

I felt like I was watching an "Indiana Jones" movies produced exclusively as a part of a theme park attraction. Like when they pulled in actors to resume their roles for new footage shot for the "Back to the Future" or "Star Wars" rides at Disney World and/or Universal Studios

Horrible, horrendously bad. The best part of the entire film was Shia LaBeouf combing his hair. What's the point of all the CGI if you are going to open it with a mound of dirt as the paramount mountain? Kill me now.

I just saw the movie and thorougly enjoyed it. The ending wasn't the best, but, hey, it's a fantasy movie. I don't go to movies with messages. I get enough of that crap at work. I go to movies to entertained, period, and this movie did just that. It took my mind off the horrors of real life and into a fantasy world where, no matter how hard it gets, the characters always come out on top. Thank you Steven Spielberg and George Lucas for taking me out of this corrupt and dying world for 2 hours.

I enjoyed the film. Yes, there were a few moments where I rolled my eyes and thought, "Yeah, right!" (the swinging vines being the major one). But overall, I did enjoy it because I got to see Indiana Jones don that trademark fedora one last time.

However, I do echo the feeling that Lucas is total crap as a writer. His characters are shallow. His story lines lack depth. The Star Wars prequels made me cringe. He should leave the writing to people who can actually write.

Indy 4 was great until the last 15 minutes, then it lost all credibility. My question is: Had Indiana done nothing, would it have mattered? If the russians got to Peru and Indiana did nothing, the russians still would have lost/died. Therefore, the plot becomes irrelevant. I thought it was great to bring back Karen Allen, and the whole son angle, that was cool.

However, I have read that Lucas signed a contract with Paramount promising 5 films. A fifth one, although great, needs to get going now, so Harrison can still have some role in it...

I was busting at the seams to see this movie. The anticipation almost killed me! I love Indy and all the puzzles he has to solve. I think that there was not enough of that in the movie. Also, I agree, there needed to be more development with Marian. But I enjoyed my night out very much. It was a bit too much with the alien stuff. I don't think they should have gone there. But I enjoyed the fact that Indy has a son and the whole family thing. Shia did a great job, he is really coming into his own! I definitely think that if they keep going with this franchise (and I hope they do!) that they should put Shia in the lead role and Harrison take on the Sean Connery dad role. Harrison can still kick butt, good for him!!

Okay. I admit it. I am a sappy romantic. After seeing this film, I am a sad, disappointed sappy romantic.

Raiders was a very romantic film – rich in texture, colour and thrills. It was magic and perhaps it is unfair to hold continue to try and hold its future franchises against it. The world was different when I sat down in that theatre some 28 years ago – and yet, last night I bought my ticket and believed I was going to get to disappear again into that amazing world of adventure where the good guy always wins – and he never loses his hat.

Not so much this time around. Like another poster stated, Harrison came across disinterested and tired. He had few classic Indy moments – but not enough. That kid they chose to be his son – absolutely no charisma at all. And Karen Allen – what is going on there? Where the heck is the whiskey drinking, adventure junkie we last saw on the screen? They sure did a lobotomy on that character.

The worst part of the movie for me? Yeah, you guessed it. The horribly uncomfortable kiss. The Indy character never would have kissed that woman with such trepidation. Jeez. I felt queasy watching it.

This was NOT worth the money and definitely should have waited for Netflix.

After I saw STAR WARS: THE PHANTOM MENACE, I felt betrayed - It was a film that didn't even feel like part of the original series. It was a self-serving piece of crap.

But, with INDY 4, I at least got an INDIANA JONES film that felt in-keeping with the originals - a film made by filmmakers who acknowledged the fact that SUMMER FILMS are for the people WATCHING the movies, not the people MAKING the movies.

I spent my time watching the latest (and, please God, the last) Indiana Jones movie playing "spot the Star Wars scene." The dialog was nearly as badly written as "Revenge Of The Sith." Not quite as bad (is anything?!), but damned close.

No, I, too, lay all the blame on the disappointment that is Indy 4 firmly at Lucas' feet. If Spielberg is to be blamed for anything it's letting George help develop it. Indy 4's best qualities are the fun "dominatrix" that is Cate Blanchett and Karen Allen.

Not great. Lucas needs to be given far less control. Still we got Marion back if just for a brief bit. I will take her in a second over Temple of Dooms Kate Capshaw screaming nonstop. She destroyed that movie.
If you havent seen it do yourself a favor and walk 2 doors over at the multiplex and watch Iron Man.

Fact is, this one is just like all of the other movies, cheesy, fun, over-the-top. It's more of an Indy film than I thought they could make. The only difference is the 20 years in between – and the fact that you've changed. You're different, but want to feel like you did 20 years ago – that can't happen and has nothing to do with the movie.

#1: Cate B just sounds so ridiculous in that Russian accent, I'm sorry. I'm not sure why she got on board with this film.
#2: When doubles were used in the other films, it still looked REAL (like the first one when Indy fell under the Nazi truck and climbed back on). This one had WAY too much cgi crap.
#3: There was one scene where I wasn't sure we were watching George of the Jungle or Indiana Jones with Mutt flying all over the place swining on vines.
#4: ...the little monkeys attacking Cate made me laugh out loud too.
#5: Temple of Doom and Lost Ark had REAL insects. I want to feel creeped out!!! Those computer ants were just so lame. It was the Mummy all over again but worse.
#6: This film story line already came out with National Treasure 2 (and I must add- better done). Aliens!? I know it ties with the other sci fi of past Indiana Jones films, but...ugggg.
#7: Adventures of Mutt in the future? Spare me. He's a cute little actor- not a badass. I'm all for him playing a more serious grown up role but...greaser is just not doing it for me.
#8: "It's the space between spaces"- What the????
#9: ...I can't think of anything good to say. Sorry.

The movie was terrible. The only thing that made that movie tolerable was the wit of Harrison Ford. The two hour green screen adventure did nothing but make me think "George Lucas did it again, he took what could have been a descent movie and butchered it with crappy computer graphics." You have Mutt (Henry Jr.) flying through the trees attacking sword wielding Bolsheviks with an army of monkeys through a never ending car chase with such pitiful highlights as a sword fight with Mutt standing between cars continuously being smacked in the genitals. Also, what happened to the FBI?? I thought Indiana Jones was fired from his university and was leaving?? Didn't tie up that one too well nor the flying monkey men from the cemetery. Anyway, I think many of the fans were disappointed by this lackluster attempt to revive Indiana Jones. At least they made lots of money by destroying the franchise, can't wait for #5.

Benjamin I don't think that anyone is forgetting that all those directors/actors have all boarded the train to Sucktown. That is the exact reason so many people are disappointed. However, I find it hard to believe that Steven Spielberg plotted for years to add many of the same elements to KSC that ruined the Star War prequels.

I am going to coin a phrase right here and now... I shall call it "The Yoda's Legs Effect". This is the term that should be used anytime a director/producer tries to compensate for a weak script and horrible execution of those ideas by hiring the latest teen heartthrob flash in the pan who couldn't act his way from a wet paper bag and to top off the huge cake of suck, slather it with hokey fake "special" effects.

Furthermore, I DO submit that George Lucas HAS stolen a part of my childhood by diminishing the series as he did the Star Wars series in the exact same ways. Your argument of watching MST3K episodes just doesn't hold water, my friend. There is one huge glaring difference- directors like Ed Wood and Roger Corman made a career of quickly producing campy B flicks for a few thousand dollars to fill a niche of the time. What this group of actors, producers and directors gave us was surely unintentional and therefore a greater tragedy because they have become so blinded that they think everything they touch will turn to gold.

I would also like to take this time to implore the producer of this turkey to apologize to us all and refund my money. $12.50 will do. I'll just eat the loss on the refreshments and the gas to get there. Seriously, George Lucas, I want my money back!

I was thoroughly disapointed with the movie. The whole nuclear blast sequence was too way over the top along with the whole martian space ship going into outspace in the end. I am a big fan of the prior Indiana Jones movies, but this was unfortunately lacking too much.

I can't believe how many people think that this movie is solely a product of George Lucas and that if he somehow wasn't involved that it would have been one of the greatest cinema masterpieces of all time. Have you people forgotten that Harrison Ford, Steven Spielberg, and Shia LaBeouf have all turned in bad movies in recent times? Does no one remember Firewall, A.I., or Transformers? They're all perfectly capable of bad performances and were just as important to this movie as Lucas was. If you read film blogs too much, you'd think that George Lucas is the only man on earth capable of making a bad film. You all should do yourselves a favor and watch some of the films that became Mystery Science Theatre 3000 episodes without the MST3K commentary. Then you'd truly understand what a bad film is and probably appreciate the quality of mainstream cinema a little more.

Also, to the people complaining about ruined childhoods, some new movies don't change the good times you had as a kid. You can still have all the warm fuzzies about your favorite movies from your childhood. Pull out some VHS copies of the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones trilogies and relieve the movies exactly how you remember them. No one is forcing you to ever watch the Star Wars prequels or Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls again.

The film was fun, it entertained and it had a really great Chick-flick ending! Why does anyone who goes to an Indy film expect realism? It's make-believe and it's supposed to be exactly that! I loved it...and I am 61 years old. My grandkids loved it, my daughter loved it. If you want realism in a movie, go see a biography or war movie. This is Indiana Jones, folks! Enjoy the ride and relish the predictable but terrific ending!!!

Ugh! I am blown away by the fact that there are people out there that actually liked this movie! Taken by itself, it may have been an entertaining piece of fluff... but it was in no way the caliber that it should have been to be considered a "comeback" to the old Indiana Jones Series. The script was atrocious. The action sequences were outrageously unbelievable– I mean take me to the edge of disbelief... don't insult my intelligence by implying someone MIGHT survive a nuclear blast in a refridgerator, with only a bruise or two to show for it. This movie is RIDICULOUS! My husband said it best when, as we departed the theater he sighed " I feel like George Lucas just stole a piece of my childhood." Clearly, someone's career has peaked and is on the downhill track. But then we should have realized that after the new Star War's movies. At one point I leaned over to my friend and said... I think I see Jar Jar Binks. Ugh!

It was painful at times to watch. The whole Tarzan thing was silly. The film suffered from a glut of CGI. It was mostly unnecessary. Poor Shia, he's such a talent and this script squandered his ability on piffle. It looked as if he was told exactly how to speak, move and think. Sad. As always it was good to see Indy. I would say it was OK. Kids will like it more than adults. Hopefully they will return to real action in the next one, if there is one.

I guess what this movie really needed was for the opening scene to show the crystal skull for about 5 minutes and a modification of the movie hall with special lights for us to become entranced with the movie....
I actually laughed at the ending due to the implausibility of it all... I just don´t know there in the Star Wars Universe this fits in due to all the alien stuff.
The worst part is that I´m going to have to watch at least 2 or 3 chick flicks to make it up to my wife!!!

Is anyone else concerned about how this movie is being marketed to little kids? I have a 7 year old who thinks I am a terrible mom for not letting him see a PG-13 movie. I have no problem with them making a PG-13 movie. But, if you are going to make a PG-13 movie, don't market it to 7 year olds!! I mean, come on, Happy Meal Toys? Do 13 year old's get Happy Meals? No. My son just came home from school with a birthday goodie bag filled with Indiana Jones stuff. Do 13 year olds hand out birthday goodie bags? No. All of the toys and Lego's that they have made are marketed to the under 13 age kids, who should not be watching this movie.

Some of these comments are astounding, almost laughable; like some bloggers would lecture Lucas and Spielberg all about "what it takes to make a good Indiana Jones movie".

"Train wreck"? "Completely unrealistic?" – laughable – when were any Jones movies "realistic". The skull looks 'fake'? Please tell us what a real Crystal Skull would look like, Please. That would be a hoot.

Lucas was telling a STORY – not projecting a documentary. Some people like it, some people don't. It doesn't matter if the complainers like it or not. WHO CARES? It really doesn't matter. Bloggers think the internet gives them the same 'clout' critics appear to have, and that general statements like 'a piece of crap' are somehow more valid than those from ten people who do like it.

Look, it is what it is. It wasn't what I was expecting, but then the only person responsible for my expectations is ME. Not Lucas. Not Spielberg. Same goes for the complainers. But I like it, mainly because it's the first new Jones in a long time. I'd have been disappointed if all the films were stamped out with the same cookie cutter. I'd have been disappointed if each was totally different from and unrelated to, the others. It is what it is.

I thought it was interesting when for the first time, Jones actually has no clue what's going on and he asks (holding the skull) "What IS this?" I kinda like the idea of him solving a puzzle that he can't solve by mowing people down with a machine gun.

Hope they bring on some more, but please don't nudge the setting into the 60s – the 30s and 40s are cool enough, and suit his character's skill set better.

And all these rumours of 'turning over the franchise' to Mutt, is all a bunch of hooey. Turn off your computers, now, and get back to Life.

Boy some people really need a vacation. These movies are for people who dont take movies seriously, who can suspend disbelief for 2 hours and have fun, and most importantly, can realize that the kind of movies we enjoyed as kids or younger adults will seem silly and contrived when we add 20+years to our lives. i thought the plot fit perfectly with the time period in which it was set. and the comments about not being able to survive the waterfalls? who is crazy enough to think anyone could survive anything that Indy has done. ITS FICTION! As with other reviews here, the kids in the audience I was in enjoyed the movie and cheered! That tells me that Lucas and Steven hit the mark, and the folks that keep complaining about the movie, well, you forgot to check your age and disbelief at the door.

Raiders was the all time classic, the greatest one and unfortunately for all the other movies in the series will be compared to. And it's comparsion that can kill new ideas.

What I like about Crystal Skull was that it took familiar concepts and characters (Indy, Marion, Jungles and Lost Temples) and mixed it concepts that had not been touched by the series before (mainly science fiction). Personally, I feel the people that get bent out of shape about the "aliens" in this Skull do so because they are used to Indy vs. the Supernatural. That's what was in Raiders, Last Crusade...supernatural religious artifacts. And that's what pops into their heads when they think of Indy. Skull flips it a little and makes it science fiction religious artifiacts. Familiar concept, different direction. But from the reaction it was enough to make it seem "unbelievable". And that's sad.

If anything, the direction of the script could have been better, as the plot was as much "out there" as "inconsistent" at times. Too many characters not enough time taken. The John Hurt character especially seemed to be the one character too many; might have been better in a series of flashbacks to flashforwards, showing Indy following clues left a long time ago by a lost long dead collegue who had sucumbed to the power of the Skull.

From there more time and attention could be spent fleshing out the relationships of the characters we really waited for: The Jones Family. Indy, Marion, and their son. These were the people we really wanted to know what was going on. Let's not forget the reason everyone liked Last Crusade was again...the Jones Family: The interaction between Indy and his Dad. The moments where we got a glipse of life at the Jones house, the banter between Indy and Marion about Mutt's dropping out of school in the middle of quicksand..absolute joy! Could fill up an entire movie with that stuff.

Overall though, I enjoyed the movie very much and I'll probably see it a second time in the theater, which in this day and age says a lot. It was a worthy chapter in the series and ranks with Last Crusade in a tie for second.

When I go to see an Indiana Jones movie, I expect it to be epic, like the other IJ movies, and like the James Bond movies. I expect to be transported to exotic locations and have a movie with broad intelligent themes and broad appeal.
This movie just seemed like any other action movie (i. e. National Treasure). It delivered the thrills and chills with action sequences, but I missed the heart. Also, the groundhog at the beginning and first part looked SO OUT OF PLACE! It had NO PLACE in an Indiana Jones movie. What is this, Caddyshack? It lowered the sophistication and old style feel of the film.
WHY would the film makers do this? Why? Why?
I just feel like the film makers can't see the forest for the trees. Sometimes creative people can get a bit TOO creative and that's why they have objective feedback or test audiences.
Some of the bits seemed like high school drama sketches (i.e. Karen Allen gripping the boat steering wheel).
The CGI looked so fake.
Very convoluted and not-thought out storyline.

Some of the best names in film had 20 years to work on this, and THIS is what they come up with?
Some moments were cool, and it was higher caliber than a lot of films, BUT so many things were sloppy or overlooked.
Where was the test audience, is what I say. The filmmakers would do best to check themselves with this...

What a piece of crap. Both Speilberg and Lucas should retire. The essentially plagarised sections from other movies. Let's see, CGI bugs from "The Mummy" series, CGI monkeys from "Jumanji", and the ancient artifacts being stored by the Masons in "National Treasure".

This was easily the most disappointing flick I've seen...possibly ever. The Indiana Jones series has always involved questing after the spiritual, the mystical...and the vaguely unattainable. Now, here we have a pure science-fiction tie-in, and it just doesn't make sense. The plot was terrifically weak, and the only actors even remotely interested in the film were Cate Blanchett and Karen Allen. Harrison Ford was there to collect his paycheck–though just barely–and Shia was just /lost/. Speaking of Shia: If you entered that theatre and didn't already know the "secret" behind his character, then I've got some oceanfront property in Montana I'd like to offer you. /Puh-leeze./ Honestly, from the reviews I've read, it seems like people are wanting to give this POS high marks just because it's Lucas/Spielberg/Ford/INDY! I honestly think they'd still be giving it high marks if it starred an entire cast of syphillitic chimpanzees–but only if one of them wore a fedora and carried a whip.

I rank Indy 4 as after Raiders and after Last Crusade, but better than Temple of Doom. What I find most interesting is that I liked it alot better the second time I saw it. The 1st time, it was too different from Raiders, I guess mostly because of Ford's age. But, the second time, I started to really enjoy all the lovely riffs about the 50s and all the great detail. I like all the characters and think the movie could have used abit more on the characters and abit less action.

This film was a mess. I was never drawn into it. Even the good parts (which there were very few of) failed to save this film because they were flanked on either side by bad dialogue, uninterested actors and WAY TOO MUCH CGI!

Why must film makers, especially a talented one such as Spielberg, turn everything into CGI? Was it really necessary to have CGI backgrounds on everything? And the "Tarzan" scene? Really?

Just a bad movie all the way around. And I really did try to like this one. I'm actually heartbroken over such a big let down.

I enjoyed the movie! These days people take movies to seriously. It is supposed to be fun and entertaining. The movie felt like it could have been made 20 yrs ago, right after the #3 (besides all the CG)! Lighten up. Spielberg, Ford and Lucas are always brilliant!

Like the Star Wars prequels, they should have just left well enough alone. It's true that compared to most of the junk that Hollywood puts out, this is a fine, entertaining summer popcorn movie. But for the hardcore fans who grew up on this franchise and regard the other movies as some of their all-time favorites, this movie rates a distant fourth.

For those commentors who rate the new movie as the third best ahead of Temple of Doom, I strongly encourage you to rent that movie and watch it again. It's much more entertaining than the Crystal Skull.

I had fun with this film and that's all I ever expect from an Indy movie. Rank it with the others? Maybe 4th, but still a lot of fun. I liked all the earlier films. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" still stands as the classic adventure film of all time. I don't imagine there'll be a 5th movie. If you want to have fun at the movies, this one should do it for you – unless you're expecting "Hamlet".

I mean c'mon that has got to be one of the worst lines ever. It was at least entertaining up until the last quarter and then you felt like you were left with the worst of the new star wars. Cheese, boringly unrealistic events and cartoon digital effects mixed with Lucus writing.

I'm a huge fan of the Indiana Jones series, and it was great to see Harrison Ford in the role again. Just a shame Lucus got involved with the movie, I wish you could blame it on the writers strike.

Reading these comments, I'm reminded of similar discussions comparing a band's current work to their earlier achievements. Long term survivors like the Rolling Stones and Neil Diamond and Eric Clapton are assassinated by their own fans because their new releases don't carry the history and familiarity of their own prior material when in fact the new material may be stronger.

People put "Raiders" on a pedestal because we were young and because it was the first and because it landed with zero expectation attached to it. "Temple of Doom" carried the weight of the expectations created by "Raiders" over 4 scant years - and it failed miserably, saddled with bad reviews and lower box office than the original. With the third, Lucas and Spielberg pandered to the masses critical of the dark tone of the second by delivering "Indiana Jones Light," a fluffy joke-fest between Ford and guest Sean Connery. Indiana Jones fans protested "The Last Crusade" with verbal derision – luckily there were no bulletin boards and no blogging around in 1989.

After countless TV broadcasts and home video incarnations and 27 years of repeated viewings we've deluded ourselves into thinking "Raiders" is some sort of holy grail of action movies, when all in all it was just a fantastic B-movie. Which is precisely what it attempted to be. To hear people say "Kingdom" is "nothing more than a B-movie" I say: what do you think the first 3 were?

If "Raiders" were to be released today, the boards with be aflame with people ridiculing the boulder in the beginning ("fakey!!"), the fact that a million poison darts could be shot at him and not one hit the mark, on and on. The reality is that "Raiders" is perfect for what it is, as are its three sequels. Perception distorts judgement and is susceptible to environment - and in this internet-happy environment, distortion abounds. Those who dislike "Kingdom" now may feel compelled to keep disliking it, but I suspect those with open minds may later see it in context of the prior 3 and realize that it stands proudly with its predecessors.

I totally enjoyed the newest Indy movie. I took my children with me and my 12 year old who has never seen any of the earlier movies loved it. Way to go...I could not wait to see it and I was so very impressed.

Indy 4 was completely forgettable. If Speilberg and Lucas want the cash grab of Indy 4, then they have to accept the film should be held to the standards they set (especially in Raiders and Last Crusade). This was the worst Indy movie – they should concede the torch has been passed to the National Treasure franchise. Speilberg is a master craftsman but even he has his flops. Time will judge this as a massive dud made solely (and successfully) to line their pockets.

Someone asked me to rate it on a scale of A, B and C. I give it a B+. I grew up with Indy so of course I liked it, but I'm not too terribly happy with the ending. I'm the fan who really really liked when the ending tied in with something historical, even if it was far fetched fantasy, like the holy grail being guarded by a knight from the Crusades. But when you start throwing aliens into anything, it crosses the line into "they've done this already" and then you think of the X-Files and all the hoopla surrounding 'Government Conspiracy' blah blah blah and suddenly, it's not so Indy anymore.

I do not think its fair to compare this movie against the previous sequels. Harrison Ford is playing the character that is fifteen years older when compared to the previous movie's time period. The time period of 1957 was when we had an arms race with the Soviets and they were looking to steal any secrets they could fine. When coupled with the supposed activity in Roswell, what a great plot!. We need to remember this is a fiction story and the plot was developed for entertainment. I think all the characters did a great job and I take my hat off to Harrison Ford for getting into shape to pull off the stunts he's famous for. This movie is a keeper and I will add the CD to my other collection of indiana Jones movies.

In the days of high gas prices, War in Iraq, The economy being poor, and the cost of food rising it was great to a classic come back to take my mind off all the troubles in the world. When I was little I grew up watch the great advancers of Indiana Jones searching for artifacts, and dodging danger was so exciting, and who could forget him rescuing the damsel in distress, and kicking the bad guys butt! So when I went to see the new movie I had high hope. It started out with the same great excitement, and great acting. I never took my eyes off the screen. When I thought it couldn’t get better my dreams of Indy were crushed by the most ridiculous ending I have every seen. The ending totally ruined the movie! When a space ship took off the only thing I could think was at any moment a nerd in a white shirt wearing glasses would pop up on the screen, and start talking about Chess, and science club! The ending ruined the whole movie!

My husband and I made a day of it. We Watched all the movies in order and feel that this was a great add to the story. I also think that there is room to continue with the Young Indy. We have to keep in mind that when the 1st one came out I was 4 years old and now being almost 30 I am still interested in seeing what adventure is next.

People need to relax and realize that these are adventures and stories and that we have enough realism with gas prices possibly getting as high as 5 or 6 dollars. So when we can go and enjoy a movie back in a time when you only had to worry about nuclear bombs. That alone makes for a great movie going experince. 4 and half stars. Would be 5 if I didnt have to pay almost 20 dollars to go the movies. 🙂

Who the hell looks for realism in a movie. This movie had all the feel of an Indiana Jones Movie. Took me back to the last three movies and had me wondering why the heck they didnt do another sooner. Harrison actually did his own stunt work at 65 years of age. The truth is he did more stunts than in the other movies. We dont want to see movies that mock real life. Wheres the fun in that? Ive told everyone, if you liked the old Indiana Jones movies, you'll like the new one. If you didnt, you won't. I would give 4 and half stars. No movies perfect.

I'd personally take the bad Russian accents and aliens in Indiana Jones over the post-9/11 terrorist organization not named al-Qaeda but meant to remind you of al-Qaeda in Iron Man. Indiana Jones with space aliens is better than Action Hero of the Week vs. Arab terrorist organization and generic white bad guy in league with Arab terrorist organization any time. That device is used so often today that cheesy communists and a token double agent is almost refreshing. Even the last James Bond film pulled the villain in league with terrorist organization deal. Being an assassin like in the Casino Royale novel wasn't evil enough in the post-9/11 world. He had to be funding terrorists instead.

Lucas and Spielberg are living in their own little kingdom of wealth and power, cut off from the rest of the world. Whatever talents Lucas may have once had, have gone long, long ago.
It is such a shame that there are thousands of talented film makers out there who will never be given a chance to put their ideas out, because greedy studio producers prefer to "invest" in this rubbish. And why not? It seems to work for them just fine doesn't it? But we are the ones losing out. It's like a carnival sideshow game where we know we're getting ripped off, but we keep going anyway. And George Lucas is the ultimate carny who just gets richer and richer. You've got to admire him for that. Spielberg, well, he must have been embarrassed to be associated with such a talentless hack.
I suggest we all go to the dvd shoppe and rent some good OLD films instead, from a time when films were made by film makers and not accountants.

He is ruining all of my favorite childhood movies. This movie was absolutely awful. AWFUL. If you haven't seen it and are scoping this article out, trust me, save your money and just re-watch the other movies.

I feel like George Lucas is just turning out inferior products now to cash in on successful cinematic franchises. This film would have been much better if the skull hadn't looked so hulking, fake, and plastic. Additionally, it should have tied into some sort of Mayan religious lore. This would have at least been in keeping with the theme of the other movies and different cultures. But NO, George Lucas had to make a strange, Indiana Jones alien movie that sucked. Sadly, the only redeeming quality is some of the dialogue exchanged between the actors, and even that wasn't enough to save this train wreck of a film.

I consider this movie probably the worst ever viewed by me. About the only thing missing was 'ET' jumping out with a light saber. Why couldn't there just had been an old-fashioned treasure hunt. I really don't know what was worse; the crappy religious mumble-jumbo or the 'close-encounter' ending. Not only did the directors jump the shark on this one, they mugged the shark. My daughter had to convince me not to try to demand my money back. I will be hard pressed ever again to trust either Lucas or Spielberg .

Saw it over the week end with my girlfriend. We both thought the film was fun, the plot thin and the "crystal Skull" Plastic. We also have a strong suspicion that they are setting up a new series with the son of Indiana Jones. Where do I rank this one? 4, for the record 1,3,2,4

My GF and I thought it was an ok movie – of course we are both in our 50's and may be a bit myopic. Not my favorite but stil worth the money. Too many references to previous movies for me – I would have liked more fresh ideas. The last few scenes looked like something from AVP, and I really like all the Alien movies – I was wondering why John Hurt was in it.

According to Tim Shestak's comments: "The movie was terrible on many levels." But the flipside is true as well: The movie was wonderful on many levels.

Consider: This is supposed to be a series of movies with the heart of the 30s pulp films, which it is. The action sequences are often typically breathtaking; the bad guys are clearly the bad guys (none of this 21st-century fliparound-plot nonsense - is this bad guy really good? Is this good guy really bad? To hell with the goofy Soviet Communists who are making such a big deal out of Cate Blanchett's villainess. Her charachter is certainly in keeping with the general opinion of pre Cold War Soviets, who were always portrayed as villains) The storylines are sometimes goofily reverberant of such films from that genre. Remember Johnny Weismuller's "Tarzan" movies? Or the goofy pulp science fiction movies of that era?
I keep hearing that this movie wasn't "believeable enough". Uhhh...ok. But "Creature From the Black Lagoon" was *believable*? To whom? Why, your average all-American teenaged kid, that's who. I truly believe that Lucas and Spielberg are reaching out not only to today's breed of ducktails and skirts-past -the- knees, but also to the shadows of those 30s, 40s, and 50s kids that reside in the hearts in every adult today who ever sat down and loved watching a "scary" or "thrilling" flick in a darkened theatre, back when popcorn was still covered in *real* butter and REAL chocolate candy bars were still 5 cents. So many people seem to miss that these are two overgrown kids reaching back into their own pasts to pull out the same things that they loved as kids, and present it to the contemporary audience as a gift. Can you imagine the audiences' reaction if today's special effects had appeared THEN? We'd be worshipping these two like gods - much as they were "worshipped" in the 70s after "American Graffitti", "Jaws", "Close Encoutners", and "Star Wars".

We need MORE wholesome movies without the scantily-clad bone ninja women and the steroid-pumped "wise guy" hitmen who shoot ecerything in sight. This movie has very little to keep smaller kids from seeing it; there is no sex, and the violence is pretty well kept in check (little blood), and I think the worst curse word uttered is when Indy says "Damn, I thought that was closer."

I'm fed up with the "political correctness" being spouted by Hollywood. I'm tired of the negativity surrounding the earlier films that depicted the evil guys as Germans and Middle Easterners (they were supposed to be evil, people! Come on - NAZIS! Remember those guys from a little thing called WWII? It was in all the papers for a while...). Next, I'm sure we'll be invaded by space aliens demanding that THEIR characterizations in movies be deleted.

These movies are made to enjoy, period. They are pure entertainment. They are meant to act as a fast speeding vehicle that takes the audience on a white-knuckle ride zooming through the darkness, twisting and turning and leaping across chasms until its breathtaking conclusion. In that vein, every one of these films has succeeded admirably.

Chill out, people. This is the stuff of which freams are made. This is the seed of what gave us directors like Lucas & Spielberg, and all those who have come after, inspired by their vision, their desire to bring their own fantasies into reality. So enjoy it while you can, before today's trash being cranked out of Hollyweird (most of it not even original stuff - nowadays it generally is regurgitated trash made by better filmmakers years ago) completely destroys the few remnants of what it once was.

1) I really liked it. Not as much as Crusade, but more than Temple and probably I'd have to see it again to know where I'd rank it compared to Raiders.

2) Everybody knows Lucas can't write for crap, except maybe himself. But if you're going to see his movies for the dilaogue, you're deluding yourself.

3) Harrison, George, and Steven made what they wanted to make. They have enough money and clout that they can do that. It is not required that everybody like it, and they know that. It's only required that they feel good about their product. I admire that.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and you don't have to like it. You can even say how much you don't like it. But don't assume you are required to see it. If you think it sucks, DON'T WATCH IT. I will certainly not see it for the dialogue and it could have been better, but I'm glad they made it and it was an entertaining two hours. What else should we expect, really?

Completely terrible. I had hoped that Spielberg and Ford would be able to rein in Lucas from doing anything too stupid, but I knew from the second the CGI gopher appeared during the opening credits and started mugging for the camera that the hack who ruined the Star Wars prequels was going to wreck another childhood favorite.

You could practically see "this scene was thought up by George Lucas and he's too rich for people to say no to him now" flashing in big block letters at the bottom of the screen for some of the worst scenes. And the godawful alien plotline definitely reeked of him.

Spielberg and the actors should be commeded for taking an F premise and turning it into a C- movie. Hopefully if they do a 5th, and it sounds like they will, they'll keep the bloated hack away from it.

I saw the new Indy movie over the weekend. I was bored to tears and nodded off several times. It was just a little too far fetched to be believable and/or entertaining. Out of all of the Indy movies, I would rate this one by far the worst.

On the other hand, the person that I went to the movie with, thoroughly enjoyed it!

We all wanted it to be great, but I agree the story seemed disconnect from what we could believe. We can beleive a lot at the movies, but sci-fi and archeology don't mix well. (only Stargate seemed to make this work). We expect archeology to be in some hidden place and some hidden object here on earth.

I think it was better than "Made of Honor" I was asked to view 2 weeks ago. So still a decent "movie" experience.

Alright, when you boil it down, Lucas hasn't been involved in a good movie for... well... 19 years. Just be glad that Spielburg (Who's also been on a downtrend for a while now) and Harrison Ford were able to blunt Lucas's hackery as much as they did.

All in all, the movie wasn't _BAD_. I mean, it was no Ultraviolet or Torque. I didn't walk out of the movie wanting my money back like some other films I could name ("What a Twist!"). It just wasn't a very GOOD movie. Meh. I really hope that someone drags Lucas out behind a shed and explains to him that he needs to hand over the reigns and go retire before he blows every last bit of his reputation down the toilet.

Spielburg, Spielburg, he's so hit or miss. It seems like he's best in an executive producer's role, rather than a producer's role.

Harrison Ford? Love him to pieces. 🙂 He did his best with what he was handed. It felt a little phoned in, but there were some great scenes where you felt the old magic.

I'm not sure if they were intentionally trying to make a contrast between the two films, but it was interesting that in Last Crusade, Indy tells a student that most of archaeology is done through study... then in this film 'You'll never be a great archaeologist if you don't get out of the library". Not mutually exclusive statements, but it's obvious the focus has changed.

Again, I stress... the movie wasn't _BAD_, it's just not good either. It entertains enough to not make me want my money back... but it's not Iron Man.

I actually loved it and so did my children. I have grown up an Indy fan and the movie is just that, an Indy film. I don't think those that hate the movie take into consideration the time period of the movie and what was theme of the times. Aliens were big. Is it so much more unbelievable than the Ark melting nazi's. Never heard of an Ark siting.

What shocks me most is that people are complaining about goofy plot and bad dialogue. Its a B Movie People, wake up!

Martians? As if they're any more plausible than the Holy Grail or an Old Testament Relic? I guess in the age of the internet, everyone is a critic, and harkens for realism.

Its Indiana Jones people! Enjoy yourself. Stop sitting around and trashing a movie for the sake of trashing it. In all honesty, if you have such an issue with Indy, go purchase a ticket for the new Ashton Kutcher film. Sounds like it will be more your speed.

I was once like you. A Star Wars fan that loved Star Wars so much that I just couldn't see how bad The Phantom Menace really was. I spent a year defending that film and using the same arguments that all of you are falling back on now. Such as:

1.) You're not the target age for this film. You were a kid when the original trilogy came out and now you're a jaded adult.

2.) This film takes place in a different time period than the original trilogy. So don't expect things to be the same.

3.) Too much hype has made built the public's reputation up to an exceedingly high level.

They're all really lame excuses that don't hold up. A good movie is a good movie and a bad movie is a bad movie. And yes, it is possible to make a bad Indiana Jones movie. We've now witnessed it. Just as we've seen 4 bad Star Wars films (let's not forget that Return of the Jedi was the first time Lucas had total control over a film. He was very upset with the way that Kersh shot Empire so he hired a "yesman" to direct Jedi when David Lynch turned down the job).

So to everyone defending Indy 4, I feel your pain. But let me warn you that there is bad thugee-juice hangover coming your way.

I realize how emotionally upsetting it can be to hear people bashing Indiana Jones. It just seems unreal. It goes against everything our collective childhoods were about. Almost like hearing someone bash E.T. I've been there. I couldn't believe people were bashing Star Wars in '99. It was so upsetting.

...but they were right. It has nothing to do with being an elitist or being a film school grad or any of those things. It's just about good movies versus bad movies.

The people that bashed Phantom Menace also loved the Matrix (same year of release).

The people that are bashing Indy IV are the same people that are singing the praises of Iron Man (just 4 weeks prior).

So do you think those people are Academy snobs? Are they jaded and unable to enjoy popcorn movies.

No. They're normal summer-movie fans like you and me. We call it like we see it and we get no pleasure in telling you how bad Speed Racer was to sit through. We'd much rather go on and on about how great Iron Man was. And we'd all love nothing more than to tell you how great Indy IV was. It just isn't so.

So if you enjoy the movie, then great. Please go see it again and take all of your family and friends.

Because the only thing that can damage the appeal of the franchise more than a bad Indy film is a bad Indy film that has less than stellar box office.

This is a terrible excuse for a film. A bunch of computer generated nonsense held together by an incomprehensible plot. This miserable ploy to take your money is nothing more than a souless copy of a once exciting idea. Save yourself time, money and aggravation and rent the original Raiders of the Lost Ark instead.

This film was not necessary since the original trilogy did the trick; however, it still does a good job of portraying the cliches of the series, but with some unnecessary backlash from the same problems Star Wars Episodes 1, 2 and 3 had. There are several problems with this movie, but there still are some goodies in between the mess. Spielberg has not been impressive with his last few films and this adds to the pile; the audience knows that he is better than this and he knows that he is better than this (a specific unnecessary animal shows up at the beginning of the film seems to only be there for a cheap laugh, maybe the children in the audience will be the only people laughing). If any thing is really good about this film, it is that Lucas did his homework on conspiracy theories and the plot seems pretty well done (many critics did not like the dialogue, but I thought it was one of the best parts of the movie); however, there are a few sequences within the film that are so over the top that it made me wonder if Spielberg even cared to edit certain parts of the script. Yes, I know, all of the Indiana Jones' films are purposefully over the top, but this movie has two or three scenes that take away from the "belief" that the action is taking place. After the "surprise" ending, the movie still goes on for a few minutes with the worst Indiana Jones film ending. Despite some major flaws, this movie still has some of the Indiana Jones feel to it, but is by far the worst in the series.

My family and I loved this movie. Sure there were a lot of crazy moments, but it kept on moving. The concept for this movie was developed nearly than 20 years ago, when people were still into paranormal stuff. Not everyone was a critic back then. What was interesting in the 80s has become cheesy today.

Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford were pretty much set on the concept and plot device, and it took a dozen of screenwriters before they finally agreed on a script. I was surprised to see M. Night Shyamalan take a stab at it.

Overall I think they captured the feel of it. Even the film style looked like it was from the 80s. The pulp action and dialog was spot on, and it was just fun to watch. It might have been over the top but come on, Spielberg just came off of shooting Munich, so give the guy some room to relax.

I would like to see Fate of Atlantis or something to do with the Bermuda Triangle on screen as the jungle and desert have each been done twice now. The Soviets conducted operations in those waters during the Cold War so I think it would be a feasible setting. They just need to think of a good plot device.

It was a fun movie... I grew up with Indiana Jones and I was stoked to see a new adventure. Call it nostalgia if you like, but I enjoyed the flick and I am already excited at the possibility of Indy V!

I liked it, though at times it didn't feel right. It felt like an epilogue to the first and third indiana jones movies. Also, the female villain's motives were somewhat confusing, and she didn't seem particularly scary; She felt more like a barb than a villain, there simply to make the characters jump every once in awhile. All the same, the movie came full circle with the first, even to the point where the ark of the covenant is briefly seen in the warehouse at the beginning. The movie was fun to watch, although it lacked the substance that the first and third movies had. The fact that Hound Dog was playing at the beginning did a nice job of setting the tone for the era the movie takes place in shows that it was meant to make us feel like the world of the trilogy had moved on to something else.

Overall, though, if I had to say what it was missing, I'd say it was warmth. It felt like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Disney for lack of a better way to describe it. The cinematography was too clean and the characters didn't feel like they had a "just got out of a desert, and there's sand in the pores of my skin" feel to them. And, it just didn't feel like I was watching Indiana Jones on the screen. There was no sense of impending doom to make us wonder what would happen to him.

All that aside, I liked it. Definitely tops Temple of Doom, at any rate. Now I can pretend there's a trilogy and that that movie never existed.

I just saw it tonight and I'll say as cheesy as it was it was exactly what i wanted, a fun ride. Seriously it's Indy being Indy. Go back and watch the originals and I doubt the differences are huge, granted I give this a rank of three with doom being last. It was fun and we laughed, gasped and enjoyed the ride. No one seem to not like it, and the aliens well, Steve always loved them aliens, and you know space Lucas is who he is. Watch it enjoy it go home.

Nobody's asking us to like it? Really? Actually Lucas is. Unfortunately, he made the same bonehead move with this one that he did with Star Wars I-III. He's trying to please everyone instead of just making a good movie. S-E-L-L-O-U-T.

It seems half of the "new" movies at the box office are re-makes of something a little more classic. A few years ago we brought back Star Wars. Even Sly Stallone realized his best characters (Rocky and Rambo) still had some stock options left in them. So of course it's no surprise to see good ole Indiana Jones back in action. And I kinda think this one worked better than most.

But aliens?? C'mon!

I just can't help but wonder if this movie could have been more than just a nostalgic nod and a forgettable summer blockbuster. The right script to compliment these great characters could have created a real classic film.

The problem was the writing. Dont believe that? Let me refresh your memories all those who say "we" have problems, because we didnt like how Indiana Jones, campy as it may have been, pulled an Episode 1 on a perfectly good franchise. Here they are:
The Sword-fight on the cars in the jungle? The monkey scene?

Do you remember anything that ridiculous in the previous moives?
The dialogue was weak. Harrison Ford's fighting looked sluggish and slow. The CGI takes away from the magic of the adventure genre.

The whole just didnt seem like Indy. It was more like a mindless action flick. Leave it to George Lucas to want to "finish" a series, that has already had a successful go.

I had to go home and watch Last Crusade to put myself back into a happy place.

I think I am more amazed at the amount of thought that has gone into some of these comments than I was to see man-eating ants. The most accurate review I read said basically that if you were a Harrison Ford/Indiana Jones fan, you would like this movie...and I did.

Contrary to what others say, it was a fast two hours of entertaining fun.

I am a huge fan of the series but have three specific complaints about the new movie.

1) The key concept of the film is stuck in a no-man's land somewhere between the supernatural and sci-fi. I would have loved a scientific take on aliens, but instead we got 'inter-dimensional beings'. I never got a resolution that made any sense to me, which is very unsatisfying.

2) Many have commented on the lack of realism, and many others have responded that viewers need to suspend disbelief. The problem is, I can't suspend disbelief if the action is incoherent. When I see 'natives' inexplicably emerging from the walls to attack Indy, it leaves me disoriented and reminds me I'm watching (and trying to make sense of) a movie.

3) A third problem is the cliche of the loyal friend (Mack) who is revealed to be pure evil. Come on story-tellers, I just can't buy this device. Maybe it seemed over the top because I had just been fed the same whopper in Ironman.

Does anyone else have these issues with the film?

Like many other armchair critics, I'm being tough because the series means a lot to me. In any case I'll always be thankful to Lucas, Speilberg, Harrison, Karen Allen, John Williams, and the rest.

I love those cliffhanger close-ups, particularly the ones of cate blanchette, scowling with her angular blue eyes. harrison ford's rough guy over confidence. and all those references to american 50s cliches and bolshevik propaganda posters were great

in spite of the silliness it's got steven spielberg written all over – and i love it

I just got home from the movie. It was ok. My husband and my son loved it, however. I'm just not into these movies. I don't like Star Wars either. Honestly, the only thing I remember about the first three was "Chilled Monkey Brains" and that's the scene my son isn't allowed to watch. We have been watching Indiana Jones for a little over a month, at least once a day.
But this movie, yes, was in tune with all of the others. It wasn't boring. It was fun and exciting. It tied the love story together perfectly. Yes, it would have been nice to see them rekindle the romance, but Mutt was there to ruin the moment every time.. And come on, who DIDN'T grin when he said "none of them was you" and she grinned that huge, awesome grin. That said it all..
As I said, it was OK. It was everything an Indiana Jones movie should have been, and aside from aliens.. (hahaha) nothing it shouldn't have been.

Sean Connery was the smartest one of the lot for passing on this film. There's no way his 'coming out of retirement' for this picture would've been a better send off than Last Crusade. If Lucas wants Star Wars he should just do Star Wars. The best part of this movie is the fact that Shia won't be burdened with this story if he gets his own run with this franchise.

My husband had a severe stroke on 4/22/08 and he is now paralyzed and unable to speak. My life has been turned totall upside down since then. My sister took me to see this movie yesterday, and it's the first 2 hours I've had to myself since "IT" happened – I did not worry, stress or fret about anything. I ate popcorn, drank a Coke, and got totally lost in the escapism. Yes it is a silly movie. The plot does not hang together very well. But Harrison Ford looks wonderful, Cate Blanchett is perfect, Karen Allen is like an old friend, and I was able to relax for the first time in over a month. I don't care if it's not perfect – it's perfect for what it is, and that's a total escape from the world for a couple of hours.

We first saw Raiders of the Lost Ark over 25 years ago, we were all so much younger, the movie biz was different, and we watched movies for entertainment value back then, not if it was 100% accurate and realistic. Lucas takes actual legends and plays with it Hollywood style. I think #4 is a great movie. I was entertained, Labeouf* swinging in the trees was WAY corny, but other than that, I loved it. And my children loved it just as much as we loved Indy 25 years ago.

First I must say that it was great to see Indy again back on the silver screen! The actors in this- Harrison, Shia, Cate, Karen, etc- were all great actors and I know none of the Indy stories are really that plausible, BUT there was no story arc in this film! When we first see the very first crystal skull Indy pulls it out as if it were a cracker jack toy- ho hum.
In other words there is no sense of danger built up to a climax, so therefore there was really no resolution (payoff) at the end- ho hum. Too many of the characters as a result were rendered useless...none of the other Indy films had this problem like 'Crystal Skull' had it.

This should have been an easy home run, but it just didn't quite satisfy due to the ho hum nature of the writing and dialogue. What could've been...

I think it was a good movie that was well executed by Speilberg. Had someone told you the plot, you'd think it was garbage, but again, the way it was executed made for an entertaining movie.
What I think has everyone disappointed is that its not your typical Indiana kind of story. Expectations are everything and for some people it failed what they expected so they didn't like the movie

Forced to agree with the majority - first 3/4 of the film was great. Ending with the aliens was pretty bad. The other films drew upon (mostly) Biblical folklore and referenced a lot of things a majority of people may believe in. But aliens? That was just too far of a stretch. Naturally I understand people's opinions that ALL films were a stretch. But alien skulls vs The Holy Grail and/or The Ark of the Covenent - alien skulls just doesn't do it for me. Wish they would've been off on one more historic (not necessarily Biblical) journey vs alien skull collecting.

The big thing to me is there was just no point in the spaceship up and leaving. Why did it leave? What was the point? The movie could've ended with no spaceship, and nothing would have changed. Can't say the same for the previous films - everyone NEEDED to see what happened when you opened the ark .. everyone NEEDED to see what happened when you drank the grail .. and what happened wasn't disappointing. A spaceship leaving is just .. well.. disappointing. No satisfaction there.

In my mind, it was just poor execution at the end – mainly the spaceship. Indy meeting aliens personally (alone) and then them disappearing would have actually been more satisfying then just seeing a spaceship leave with no interaction with Indy. And having Indy say something at the end, or even throughout the movie about it being "ridiculous" to believe in aliens and then be proven wrong at the end would've kinda been funny.

At the end of the day, all I care is what's my family and kids' enjoyment quotient are. Did I get my money's worth? Yes. Did I enjoy this movie for 2 hours and the next day when I still talk about it with my colleagues and family ? Yes. Originally, citics are in the business to tell us about the movie. Ideally, their existence is to guide us about the movie. But many forgot themselves and the true reason for their existence. They equate art as enjoyment because it is a "higher" level of enjoyment. That may be true for the minority who has made it in life but for normal Joes like us, we just want to pay to enjoy for several hours and later for several days. After all those real world problems, we just want movies that give us some added joy in our everyday lives. I enjoyed this 4th installment but the 1st one -Raiders of the Lost Ark – was the best for me. But the impact was all the more because when I first saw that movie, there was never a seat-off-the pants continuous action movie. This was the very first one. The genre began with this movie. Raiders started it all. It was extreme enjoyment. Of course, later on, there were others but it was never like the Raider's. The First one's impact when there were no others in that category then. Well, that's something.

It may not be quite as good as the first,but it was a very close second, entertaining and worth seeing...more than once! Harrison Ford still looks and is amazing and it was great to see Karen Allen again...who also still looks fabulous. A great summer movie! (We got to see it at one of America's last standing drive-in's too...an added bonus!) Much applause to the fourth installment...and hopefully not the last...of a great series!

I will agree with some other posters on here that there was some especially corny dialogue (even for an Indy movie and particularly in the first few minutes) and I agree they should have toned down the CGI a LOT, (the vine scene and the swirling rock scenes especially) but I enjoyed the movie a great deal. I loved all of the references to the other three and the way it built on some of Indy's older relationships. It achieved for me what I was looking for, which was pure guilty entertainment, just like the other three. And I think Harrison pulled it off well, because Indy was always more than an action hero. In the end, he always won because of his wits. His age didn't change that and I thought Shia was great as the young, impulsive risk taker that we all know Indy once was.

Lucas is a joke now, and this movie is a reflection of it. It has the same horrible plot, unrealistic dialogue and wooden acting that plagued the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Cate Blanchett with her cartoon-character-esque depiction of the main villian is the worst of the worst as far as the acting is concerned. A lot of people seem to take issue with the inclusion of aliens as the central plot point, but to them I say this...is that any more unrealistic than the actual physical Ark of the Covenant being discovered and having ghosts fly out that melt people's faces? No, it isn't...and that is the saddest thing about this movie...what made it fail was not the concepts driving the plot, but instead the horrible execution and weak storytelling that detracted from the entire film. When you let George Lucas' humor run rampant (to those that don't know, he has the sense of humor of a five year old) you can't expect anything good to happen, and his obsession with overdosing buffoonery as comic relief segments ruins whatever isn't already destroyed by the unbelievable characters themselves. This movie was so corny, I swear that I expected to see Jar Jar Binks hop out at any point. See this movie for a bit of visual flair and a distraction, but do not expect to see the Indy of 20 years ago..."Crystal Skull" is about as close to "Raiders" as "Attack of the Clones" was to "Empire Strikes Back." And that's saying a lot.

I can't say it was as good as Raiders and Last Crusade and it doesn't come close to Temple's wit. I thought it was over done and just plain silly. This was diffinitely a thumbs down. I won't be buying it on DVD.

Indy 4 is by far the worst in the bunch. The film standing alone is awful, but what makes it worse is that it reaches out to the previous Indy films in very bad ways (Let's just throw Marianne Ravenwood into the Amazon randomly, and Shia Labeouf pulling a Short Round between two jeeps instead of two mine carts). The other films could very easily stand alone, with very subtle and clever odes to prior Indy films. Crystal Skull feels like a tribute film/remake of classic scenes from prior Indy films but done poorly and not by the same people.
Sure there are some good sequences (atomic bomb test site and that's it), but they are outweighed by the awfulness of everthing else.

One more thing, Indy 4 overkilled the special effects. Indy 4 was shot in a completely different style and lighting that it didn't FEEL like the others.

As far as not blaming Spielberg? We've been waiting for this film for almost twenty years, and Spielberg hasn't directed a film since Munich and THIS is what he delivers? Who cares if it's Indiana Jones, it's just a bad movie. It's 1941 but it made a crap load of money.

I kind of feel like any critique of this movie along the lines of: "it felt like a b sci-fi movie" or "I didn't like the space alien thing" fails to fundamentally understand the entire Indiana Jones series. It's kind of like criticizing "Kill Bill" in comparison to "Jackie Brown" because they seem like fundamentally different styles of films... well... they are.

The first three Indy Movies took place in the '30's and, in turn, they were made to look and feel like Adventure serials from the... wait for it... 1930's. This movie took place in the '50s when popular culture was turning toward more science fiction and there was a plethora of B Sci-fi films... hence, this indy movie played more like a 1950's B Sci-fi movie.

I loved the movie. It's tied for second place for my second favorite. You can't beat Raiders, but LC and KCS are equal in my mind.

The film was so close to great - but way too much CGI! All Spielberg needs is a camera, props and actors. Given the bare essentials of moviemaking, he's the best director working in Hollywood, and maybe anywhere. Once you run his work through a computer, he's suddenly the same as everyone else, even the hacks who make Mummy and Stargate and other movies that 'Skull' is being unfavorably compared to. Computer-effects make the playing field too level.

I went to see the movie over the weekend and I don't think I have seen such a mailed in performance by an actor, director combo in sometime. The writing was absolutely horrid, the acting was pedestrian and the directing looked liked some one from film school. The movie jumped from the believability of the first three to something that falls south of The Mummy franchise. I mean who would have ever said that The Mummy produced something better than the Indiana Jones franchise.

Stay home on this one. Maybe catch it on On Demand, but I recommend watching it on HBO or TNT.

Of course people are going to compare this movie to the originals. "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" simply didn't have the magic as the originals. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is a classic. Why? Because the movie has well developed characters, great scenes, an awesome score, great dialog and much more!

Watch Raiders and pay attention to the scenes. They are so well developed, they don't seem rushed or feel like the actors are trying too hard.

The Crystal Skull has some cool action scenes and great cinematography (glossy), but it fell short of a "magical" movie experience for me. And yes, at 29 years old I still experience that, but not with this movie.

The actors weren't to blame... the plot, dialog and the scenes (structure) were flawed. Harrison Ford seemed to be having a great time playing Indy again. It was also great to see Karen Allen play Marion again (watch interviews with her on youtube, she is so spirited), I only wish she had more to say in the movie!

Oh, and Mac, played by Ray Winstone, was an underdeveloped character. I don't blame Mr. Winstone, I blame the writing. He could have been a fun character, but the movie audience hardly got to know him. What a shame.

I couldn't wait for this piece of junk to end. It seems there are some out there who are saying "Hey, it's a movie, relax and enjoy." If those are your standards then any piece of crap will do. I thought it would have been better as a cartoon. It was a lazy piecing together of corny, impossible in real life, action scenes.

I enjoyed the movie overall and wasn't bothered by the alien plot. I have no idea why people are complaining about certain chase scenes being unrealistic and such. Did you watch the other Indy movies? Because there are tons of things in all these movies that would just never happen. But realism isn't even the point ... the movies are just for fun and escapism. It was great to see Karen Allen again, though it would have been even better if she'd gotten more to do. Anyway, I had fun with the movie. I rank the Indy movies: 1, 3, 4, 2. (Oh and I would never blame Spielberg for the things that are wrong with #4 – I don't think direction is the issue – its the writing ... yeah I'm looking right at you George.)

Seriously what a massive letdown this movie was. Its funny, going in I was most worried about an old Indiana Jones, Harrison pulled that off amazingly well. But the rest of the movie was garbage. Dont tell me that I lost my imagination and forgot what the Indy moves were. Did you see those ridiculous sequences? Swinging from vines? sword battle while standing on two cars? falling over three waterfalls? horrid CGI? THAT IS NOT INDIANA JONES. I dont care about the aliens too much (although I would have wished for a better plot) but its the terrible writing, terrible direction, and terrible waste of great charectors and actors playing them why I will try to forget the movie ever happened. I am a lifelong obsessive Indy fan and know I understand how James Bond fans feel about Never Say Nevery Again.

This movie was horrible...one of the worst movies I've ever seen. If it didn't have "Indiana Jones" in the title, it would've gone straight to DVD and everyone would've hated it. Instead, Lucas once again messes up a franchise while amazingly making a fortune at the same time. Here's Lucas's magic recipe: make a few good movies (Lucas gets credit, even though he didn't write the scripts) then you can throw together any piece of junk and people will eat it up. I can't blame everyone for going to see it, but how people can objectively say this was anything but total garbage is beyond me. This was something I'd expect out of a TBS made-for-TV move, but not from...well wait, I guess after the new Star Wars movies, I should have expected this junk from Lucas too.

This movie reminds me of the new Star Wars movies. Horrible plot, horrible acting, horrible effects. Why do they ALWAYS have to make the new films OVER THE TOP? Stay TRUE to the series for crying out loud!

The bottom line is that there is no tension in this movie. Lucas and Spielberg never developed the relationships. I didn't even hate the villain. In previoius films, Indiana was always just a regular guy using his wits, fists and whip to beat the bad guys. In this movie, he's communicating with skulls, surviving nuclear radiation, and his son is flying through the jungle on vines.
All that being said, I thought there were a few moments when the movie was going to gel. If we could edit Skulls down to 30 minutes and keep the parts that don't feel like a parody we would end up with something genuine.

I havejust seen themovie and all I really have to say is. KEEP GOERGE LUCAS AWAY FROM ANY AND ALL SCRIPTS. This has his finger prints all over it. Now what I loved about all of the Indy movies is the fact that while it was fantastical there was still an underlying feeling of probablity. This was lacking in it. It was as if Star Wars and Indiana Jones had met together in the 1950's. and the aliens were starting to take over the universe. It was just wierd.

I told all my friends at work it's the same movies as National Treasure 2...which, most avoided because it is that bad. I mean, the estranged parents fall back in love, the final scene is in some golden temple with treasure and lots of water...dramatic escape, happy ending...

The only other comment I've got is about the scene where Shia is swinging through the jungle with a bunch of monkeys. Reminds me of Speilberg's Jurassic Park 2, where the daughter completes her gymnastics routine while fighting the raptors... I rate it awesomely bad all around... except it wasn't awesome...

With gas prices at $4, people losing their houses and a never ending war isn't there anything better to complain about? Indy is back. Not the wimpy Henry (fake Indy from Last Crusade) but the REAL Indy from "Raiders" and "Temple". Crystal Skull is the most fun that I've had at the movies in decades. Either you like it or you don't. Please don't cry about it. Thank you Steven, George and Harrison!!!

oy, what were they thinking??? The script was terrible, the characters disconnected and the overall plot was just too much. I was expecting to see similiar lighting/film quality as the first three...but was sadly disappointed. Harrision seems to be going through the motions. Several CGI messes throughout. He bumbles and seems to lack the confidence and knowledge that he had before. Never once did he pull his gun and barely used his whip. Sallah must have seen the writing on the wall. Save your $15 and get this one as a rental.

I'm so tired of the Lucas bashing bandwagon. The sad truth of the matter is that Lucas was nothing more than a producer / conceptualizer on every Indiana Jones film. Steven Spielberg is solely responsible for everything that actually makes it on camera. Had the movie been an overwhelming critical hit, Spielberg would have gotten tons of credit for overcoming the evil influence of Lord Lucas. Since it's not an instant classic, however, Spielberg is instantly forgiven and the blame is laid squarely at Lucas's feet. That's fine for Aintitcoolnews.com talkbackers, but I expect a little bit more maturity and responsibility from the reporting I get from CNN.com.

I'm no Lucas apologist. The Star Wars prewuels indeed fail on many levels. I do, however, find fault with the prevailing notion that if Lucas is involved with a film he is somehow responsible for all of the faults. He did not direct Indiana Jones. Spielberg did. Grow up and place the blame for the faults where they are due. After all, do you think the man who has two Best Directing Oscars under his belt is so much of a wuss that he won't dare contradict an idea from Lucas that he thinks is bad??

I'm not a big movie critic but this movie rocks. Harrison Ford pulled off a stellar performance to repeat an icon like I.J. is tough and he did it well. The movie was one of the best I've ever seen period.

"Find something we DO like?" We did find something, it was called "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" (do note the fact that "Temple of Doom" wasn't mentioned.

Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford owed the fans more than what was produced. The first hour worked, but as soon as Shia The Beef started swinging on vines and commanding the will of jungle orangutans, this film was doomed.

A friend asked me what the plot consisted of. I tried as much as I could, sputtering out sentence fragments and plot tangents involving whatever John Hurt's character was, ultimately sighing asking how soon until The Dark Knight is released.

The fatal flaws are screenwriter Koepp's fault, but ultimately the blame rests on Spielberg and Lucas for not letting graceful and entertaining dogs lie and marring a once great franchise with this drudgery.

I loved it. It was the same witty and campy humor in the other films. Part of enjoying the Indy films is suspending belief. They are made in the spirit of the old B movies. You are not supposed to question everything.

I loved the old guy jokes and the nod to Indy's father and his old friend Marcus. It was like visiting with old friends and tying up loose ends. I would not rank it at the top of the 4 films but it is an important part of the story.

I had to see the film – it was a given because my family and I have loved Raiders since I was a little girl – but I didn't have to like it. And I didn't. What happened to subtlety in filmmaking? Directors and producers today do not realize how important the storyline and the relationships between characters are to their audience. Directors and producers don't realize that bigger is not better. I am tired of the poor acting, violence, and over-the-top special effects that has become commonplace in today's filmmaking. You would think that a brilliant director and a producer, with a well-loved cast, and the all of the resources and creativity at their fingertips, could create a fun, adventurous, straightforward film as they did with the original Raiders of the Lost Ark. I watched it again today and relished how marvelous a film it is, especially when compared with this new film that seems bizarre and has lost all of the fun of what Indiana Jones once was.

I walked out of Iron Man saying "this movie is a classic – I have to buy it". I walked out of Indiana Jones 4 and said, "Well, it was entertaining."
There was so much good about this movie: The actors were superb, and Shia LeBeouf was terrific... I laughed when he makes his entrance as a Marlon Brando Clone. I loved all the 1950 references.
However, the plot was not up to par... the space ship ludicrous. It fit in with the 1950 paranoia, but it was not the movie that was Raiders of the Lost Ark.
If Shia is to carry the baton as the new Henry Jones and they come up with an outrageous, but more intelligent plot I'll be there on opening day.

It was a really good kids movie. Something safe for the whole family. That, however, is not what Indiana Jones is supposed to be. They are gritty action movies, that make you go "Ooo, that bad guy really got it good." Or, "Did you see his head get cut off?" There was a surprisingly little amount of blood in this pic, that makes me think the filmmakers wanted to make a safe movie that they could take their grandkids to go see.

Crystal Skull was terrible. I think the Indiana Jones movies go in order 1,2,3,4 as far as best to worst. So many people on here knocked Temple of Doom, but that movie rocked. You call him Dr. Jones, doll!

Hollywood just doesn't know when to leave well enough alone. Is all originality dead? It seems that every great movie or series we once loved is now being remade, rehashed, and milked for every penny of merchandising. Did we really need another Indiana Jones movie? No. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a classic piece of cinema and Temple of Doom was a spectacular sequel – whether you liked the "grossness" aspect of it or not. The third movie was contrived and one could tell the franchise had peaked. This fourth movie is just a bunch of old men trying to make a few more million dollars – and not trying to make great cinema.

I would equate watching the Crystal Skull to attending the many reunion concerts that people shell out a chunk of change to watch. It might not have the same impact it had on you 25 years ago but is it still fun....yes. Is it a great cinematic achievement?..no. The action scenes were good but the relationship between the characters totally didn't work mostly due to their stupid dialogue. It was almost laughable at times and yes, I did look at my watch towards the end. The action scenes almost made it a good flick but couldn't save the whole movie. Having just watched National Treasure 2 the night before on DVD, it was about all I could stand.

The movie is a pretty good Indiana Jones film. Not great, but good, somewhat less than "Last Crusade," but better than "Temple of Doom." I wasn't bothered by the alien element. It seemed to fit with the '50s setting when the flying saucer buzz was getting under way. The big problem with Lucas films is George Lucas. He should have been allowed nowhere near script or story. His scripts for the last (or first as some will have it) three Star Wars films are awful and I suspect he's the real villain behind the scenes of "Crystal Skull."

The new Indiana Jones movie was great. I took my kids and we loved it. We want to see it again. It's great to see a 65 year old actor still have it!!! Go Harrison Ford. The movie was funny, had great action scenes, and was never boring. The combination of actors together made the movie a great one! It's nice to be able to take your kids to a movie with no sex and foul language. Thanks to Spielberg and Lucas for keeping the movies clean.

The first three were good to excellent. This one is weak. Clever wit was an Indy mainstay nearly absent in this chapter. Were it not for the series history, it would be terrible. Spielberg spoke of the original Indy film as an attempt to make an old style "B" serial. He ended up with a surprise blockbuster. This one was supposed to be a blockbuster but it's a "B" serial. National Treasure has a better thing going, now. And the prospect of Shia being the next Indy is underwhelming. The kid/guy is overexposed.

I agree with Leopold's take on the movie. Even though I was only just born when Raiders came out, I grew up idolizing Indiana Jones (even naming my cat 'Indiana' when I was 12 years old). Even with the amazing computer advancements hollywood has developed over the years, the Indiana Jones trilogy has stood the test of time. The first half of Crystal Skull was amazing and kept with the spirit of the original films. But by the end of the movie, Indiana Jones just didn't fit where the story had taken him. It was awkward and I just wasn't ready for such a fantastic element to be involved. So I applaud the directing, the acting, even most of the special effects (minus the monkey scene). But this was definitely Lucas' movie, and it seems that the only thing he compromised from his original idea was the title of the film.

I went in with lowered expectactions and had great fun with it. It wasn't Citizen Kane, It wasn't The Godfather... It was Indiana Jones. It had lots of camp, lots of action and instead of the spritual aspect, there was a alien apspect instead, almost the same thing. Of course its' formualiac, a lot of movies have been based on this very formula since the first movies made their appearance. It's soaked into our pop culture at this point. There would have been people upset if they had strayed from the formula. I enjoyed it for what it was... a campy, fun, action-filled summer movie.

I'm a huge Indy fan and hated the movie. I would first wish that Lucas would stop writing scripts – they are cringe worthy. I also wish that Lucas and Speilberg would have just gone outside and filmed more in natural surroundings rather than in very fake-looking sets. Even some simple, outdoor dialog scenes were too slick and fake looking. It was terribly distracting. The dialog was bad and much of the action was plain silly. I went in thinking it was going to be a fun, 50's type serial movie but then it just got stupid.

Ok – I am with those of you willing to acknowledge that this was pure entertainment. Indy movies were never intended to be epic. This was great family fun. I remember seeing Indy on the big screen when I was a child, and (this time) I was able to take my own children. It was truly a popcorn, candy, and soda pop experience.

In a post-Lord of the Rings society, we have become so critical of anything and everything that does not meet our exact expectations. Americans need to relax and learn to have a little fun. So, movies are expensive...don't see them if you are worried about the money...I, for one, willingly spend the money to escape from the really bothersome things like the war...rapidly rising gas prices...natural disasters...you know, the big things...I choose not to freak out about whether a movie script was totally believable or up to par. Heck...I don't want it to be believable. I want to have some FUN!

This may have been a great movie, but it wasn't a great "Indiana Jones" movie. Where the script failed is that you could have taken any action star/character and put them in the title role and had the same movie. "National Treasure 2" was a better Indy movie than this. Yes, its been 19 years since the last film and Harrison Ford is now in his mid-60s, but there's aspects of the character that don't change over time and this script lost those points in favor to the homages to the last three. This film was 3 references away from being on the level of "Die Another Day" in the James Bond series.

A film needs to be entertaining, yes. But just because you are being made to think doesn't make a movie any less entertaining. A well thought out plot and script and good acting are necessary for a movie to not insult the intelligence of the audience. Big stunts and big action scenes are great, but they cannot be what the movie relies on. Like the new Star Wars trilogy, this movie lost points on the script and lost points for the over-the-top green screen scenes.

I did enjoy the movie, but walking out of the theatre, all I could say is, "A fridge?! Are you kidding me?!

George Lucas might be a visionary behind the scenes - and a great storyteller... However, he is a crap screenwriter and always has been. What works easily can be attributed to Speilberg and his ability to avoid the hamfistedness that has become a Lucas trademark. I enjoyed the film for what it was, not what it could have been - but certainly agree: If George gets the urge to write another story, PLEASE get a real screenwriter to do a complete re-write.

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" is the best action-adventure movie ever made. Nothing else has come close. The three sequels have been entertaining, each in its own way, but none measures up to the almost perfectly constructed plot of "Raiders," to say nothing of its visual and verbal wit, its humor, and its action set-pieces. Rarely in film do writers, directors, actors, editors – the whole machinery of film production – peak at once with such outstanding results. Bury the other three in the sand for a thousand years. Maybe then they will become priceless. "Raiders" was priceless the moment of its release.

My seven year old son and I went to see the movie today. We both enjoyed the movie very much. We have seen all the Indy movies; rewatching them recently and I hope that 'Mutt' can possibly carry the torch for his old Dad.

At one point in the film, Mudd Williams, played by Shia LeBouff, becomes entangled in a web of vines during a jungle chase scene. He suddenly makes eye contact with a group of wild monkeys and the next second, with monkeys in tow, is swinging like Tarzan, vine to vine across the jungle canopy of the Amazon. Lebouff then times a perfect jungle swing to land in the front seat of the enemy's speeding jeep, while his new monkey companions ruthlessly attack the Soviet villain played by Cate Blanchet. The entire scene was completely random, irrelevant, unbelievable, and retarded. Need I say more? Worst movie ever.

Like many people, I would rank this film as the third best in the series. This movie had problems all over the place from story to acting to directing...in the end it works okay, but is not deserving of the blockbuster status that it has achieved.

I just did not feel the kind of tension in the action as in past movies or the connection to the characters. I wish they could have tightened up the story a little bit and not been so unbelievable with some of the action scenes.

It will be interesting to see if they do had this series off and make another film with Harrison Ford as a secondary character. Hopefully with a better story.

I will add, that my wife and kids all enjoyed it. My wife thought it was fun, if a bit silly. And my son (7) and daughter (9) had a good time.

I was willing to forgive much in this movie, such as the crazy plot, huge leaps of logic and lack of character development, things that were in the first 3 to some extent because I wanted to enjoy it at all costs, but the ending was too much. Sure there were some extraordinary things in the first 3 movies but they were small and acceptable. The end of this movie would be comparable to God himself popping out of the Ark in the first movie and killing the Nazi's himself... with a samurai sword. That's how corny this ending was. Lucas is not familiar with the term "subtlety".

Just saw this movie today... sorry its the WORST one from the series. It was like bla bla bla ,,,, I was waiting for some big surprise and some good action sequence .. but never got any. Did I like it ..well not really.

The movie was just OK. The script seemed based around action scenes and not characters. I knew it was getting bad when Harrison Ford looked bored with being tortured. Plus, there were entire characters who were brought into the story with little regard for what they would do when they got there. Marion Ravenwood? REALLY? And the villainess, Cate Blanchett, was a cross between Natasha and Baroness from GI Joe. In other words, she was as one-dimensional as a cartoon.

It was just good to see Indiana Jones again, but it felt weird when the music was playing...like it didn't fit in the movie I was watching.

Indy 4 was merely an encoure for Harrison, Steven and George. No more, no less. did they want it to be good? of course. Did they want to please the fans of the Indy series? of course. Did they set out to make a film that would win an oscar? of course, NOT. That was never the point.

They made this film for us. The fans, the customers who enjoy the fantasy and the adventures of fabled Indiana Jones.

Go to the movies (with your kids or grandkids) and just enjoy yourselves.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. First off, Temple of Doom had an AMAZING intro; and how could you not love Short Round?! Sure, the blonde was annoying- but she was a dancer; not a hot bartender or a gorgeous spy.

Crystal Skull SUCKED.

It was an amazing showcase for Shia Labeouf. The boy can act. Harrison Ford was great, until the script became too lame even for him to handle.

The trilogy should have not been tampered with. It ended beautifully with the buys riding off into the sunset. All of the CG animals and overacting by Karen Allen...oh, and more CG spaceships and a Russian character not even trancing in Russian at the end...ugh, it was horrible. HORRIBLE!!

I wanted it to be good; believe me. Stop trying to defend this film just because you wanted it to be good. I want my money back 😦

It's funny... I keep reading these posts about how Temple of Doom was horrible, the worst of the 4 etc. But I think a lot of us are selling Temple short, to boost how we feel about Crystal Skull. Personally, after just seeing Indy 4, it made me miss my youth and the joy I felt upon seeing the original films. Those films felt handmade, and with a lot of care. While they went for a similiar feel with this one, it just didn't seem right. Part of it may be due to Harrison Ford's age, although I felt he did an admirable job, part of it may be also due to the use of CGI. Some scenes seemed ridiculous (like the monkey scene), while others felt like classic Indy (the motorcycle chase, the warehouse, the jungle chase). I'll give you a classic comparison... both dealing with bugs. Tell me what creeped you out more, the bug room in Temple of Doom, or the ant scene in this one? I walked out of Indy 4 thinking to myself, I wish I was 12 again, then I probably could have enjoyed this one more.

4th is a Satyr Play
The Greek cycle was three tragedies and a satyr play.
Lucas/Spielberg/Ford gave us Indiana Jones (granted, in comedies) as hero warrior, heroic lover, and world/family redeemer.
The 4th is the satyr play and, as such, is a mockery of what came before.
Lucas is become a caracture - and a satyr play therefore is expected.
The surprise (disappointment) here is that Spielberg/Ford participated; apparently in a willful destruction of the franchise.
Further discussion of this satyr play is not merited.

Entertainment? Have you all forgotten this? This movie was entertaining, fun and took me back to Indiana Jones. To many people just forget the meaning of entertainment. This ranks number 3 in this series and was a great 2 hours of , well, entertainment. Imagination? have we all lost it as we have gotten older?

I loved it. Raiders of the Lost Ark is my all time favorite movie. The new one is no match for the original, but who could possibly expect it to be?

The alien angle in the new one is not one that I would have chosen, but they pull it off and make it work. So the original Raiders is still the best; The Last Crusade is second; The Crystal Skull is a close third. Without doubt, The Temple of Doom is the worst of the four movies.

I am 41 years old and have not been to a movie theater in years. I simply cannot afford to go very often, but I made sure to see the new Indiana Jones movie the opening weekend. I have been counting down the weeks and days until it was open. It was worth the wait!

I was so ready to see this film that I'm not sure it could have met my expectations. I liked it, but was not awed by it as I had hoped to be. After thinking about why for a few days, I think my main problem with it were the parts ot the characters' adventures that would have killed normal human beings (waterfalls come to mind), and physical skills that seemed to stretch credulity (Shia and the vines). Those moments gave the film almost a cartoon pr super hero quality that I don't remember from the other films. We have pleny of cartoons and super heroes; we only have one Indiana Jones.

My wife and I agree the film was easily the worst of the series. I think I'm wasting my time by elaborating, but I'll say that the story is far fetched even for Indiana Jones, the alien plot is horrible, especially for Indiana Jones and the whole thing looks like it was thrown together by amateurs. As another poster mentioned he had done, I was also looking at my watch frequently to see how much longer I had to suffer through it. I should have left, but curiosity got the best of me.

Raiders is far and away the best Indy movie. The Last Crusade is a fun, lighthearted Indy movie with pretty good action and surprisingly deep character development. Temple of Doom is my third favorite, it is so often underrated. Sure the movie was dark, in some places too dark, and the MacGuffin is the weakest (until the new Crystal Skull) but the action scenes were the best in the series and there were a few suprising laugh out loud moments. KIngdom of the Crystal Skull is the worst of them, but it is still a fun, enjoyable two hour romp through the world of Indiana Jones. It just doesn't have any weight or lasting power which all the others have.

The problems lie mostly with the script, but others are not without fault. Ford and Spielberg do a good job, but they are not at the top of their game (they were close to the top with Raiders and did very well on the two sequels). Lucas and the script are the biggest problems with this movie. Let's face it, while Ford has been losing his touch for about a decade now and Spielberg has been losing his touch for almost as long, Lucas hasn't done anything good since Last Crusade and outside of the first three Indy films and the first three Star Wars films (and American Graffiti) he hasn't done anything good. While those achievements are enough to consider him a giant in the entertainment industry, that's about all he's done of note. And the Star Wars prequels and this new Indy film wlll only tarnish his previously good record. It's like when Michael Jordan returned to the NBA to play for the Wizards or like Bill Clinton right now campaigning for his wife. They should have given up the game a long time ago, and while Ford and Spielberg look like they still have something left in their tanks, Lucas has been running on empty since 1989.

The script starts off well enough, although there are a few problems even with the beginning, but it goes downhill from there and the ending is the most ridiculous yet. At least with Raiders and Last Crusade you can imagine that God might get pissed off enough to destroy somebody who messed with his stuff. The magic stones were wierd, but didn't actually play that big of a role in the Temple of Doom. Here's the other thing, aliens have been done over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. The Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail hadn't been done much ever before (or since) the Indy movies. They were unique artifacts for Indy to search for and their endings were also unique. The Crystal Sull (other than looking cool) isn't unique and the ending isn't unique either. It is a cop-out, something the Indy movies rarely do, until now. I wouldn't say the ending ruined the film, but it came close. It certainly turned the film from a pretty good return for Indy into a pretty lame one.

I really enjoyed KOTCS. It's third on my Indy list behind RAIDERS and CRUSADE. Better than DOOM. I've seen it twice. And the second time was even better. I was disappointed by DOOM and CRUSADE when I first saw them in the theater cause they didn't match up to RAIDERS. SKULL is kind of the same. It's on par with the other two and just as much fun. The theme of "family" in this movie resonated with me as I'm sure with most parents that grew up on Indy. People tend to forget that there was clunky dialogue and strange and unreal plot devices in the other Indy movies. SKULL is really no different. I would like to see a poll taken on CNN. What age groups liked the movie and which didn't? Cause I have a strong feeling the younger crowd has more of the issues here. There were so many moments that were great in this movie – they outweighed the bad. And as a whole... the Indy series shines in comparison to most action/adventure movies. My advice... relax... have fun... and enjoy it while you can.

I am reading all of these reviews and I'm really disappointed in some of you guys. I haven't even seen this movie yet, but i already know that its going to be stupid and FUN, not a thought provoking masterpiece that is going to win an academy award for best picture or screenplay. I mean even Harrison said he thought he was making comedies when he was making the Indy films. Some of you are expecting far too much going into this. Like someone previously noted at, check your ego at the door, revert to 7-13 and remember what its like to just accept a movie for what it is. I'm absolutely thrilled to see this movie and I know what I'm going to be getting: some one liners that might me hard to swallow while my eyes roll out of my head, crazy action sequences, and a story that isnt even remotely realistic. But you know what, I'm going to have fun, which is more than what I can say for most of you.

I have seen the movie twice now; saw it at the midnight showing opening night/morning and on Memorial Day. Looking back it was better the second time around. I can also remember the reviews of Temple of Doom being too gory, or Last Crusade being too slap stick when they came out the first time, yet they seemed to improve with age.

I agree, there are way too many people who spend countless hours dissecting the plausibility of the movie as if it were a 2 hour Myth Busters episode. RELAX PEOPLE, it is a movie. You are bashing the script as if the last three Indy movies were comparable to the likes of To Kill A Mockingbird when it comes to writing.

The only thing I was a tad dissatisfied with: the musical score. A few pointed out there was no "bad guy theme" for the commies, and I noticed that a lot of the music was recycled from scenes such as “the map room" as well as the "grail theme”.

Overall, I liked it; I give it an A-.

In addition, for the person who posted that they thought Speed Racer was better...consider your credibility lost.

A friend of me came up to me the day after I saw it. SHe was all excited because she wanted to see it? "How was it?" she asked. It was awful I said. Her face dropped, "How?" she asked. I asked if if she really wanted to know, she said she did. I said "Aliens"

I found this one entertaining in a comic book way, but way below Raiders of Last Crusade. The first was a great action film, with good characterizations. The third was almost a comedy that really was carried by Indy/Dad relationship (I was surprised Sean Connery didn't make a cameo in Crystal Skull, at least at the weeding scene). The Temple of Doom was basically a horror film with little interest around the characters.

Skull could have been a better movie, for sure, with much less of the aliens and big screen sci-fci effects. Having said that, it was worth seeing, in that Harrison Ford really is a fine actor, and it was nice to see Karen Allen, even though she was underused.

I am not sure I will see it again, but would recommend it as a good summer movie.

The worst of the four. Last Crusade was, by far, the best of all the Indy films. I was hoping Crystal Skull would capture the spirit of its predecessors, but it did not. They underused Marion Ravenwood (she was basically just a chaffeur), Shia and Harrison just didn't have the chemistry Harrison and Sean did, and well, I miss Marcus Brody and Sallah! (Yes, I know Denholm Elliot has passed away.)

The movie didn't seem like an adventure, more like a spoof – a bit hokey.

I think the best reviewers are the ones 5-17 years old. No one who was a kid during the first three is going to see the movie the same way they did 20-25 years ago. Ask kids what they thought of it and that's the review that counts.

A little long – but seeing Marian and Indiana together again was worth it. Too much profanity, too long fist fight scenes and one too many "villains about to conquer" scenes, but Ford still has it and so does Spielberg. The Karen Allen reunion with Ford makes the movie. The computerized stuff and the sword fight on opposing vehicles does not. Missed Marcus and Sean Connery – but it's still entertainment.

They are right when they mention that you can only compare this movie to other Indy films. I would rank this Indy movie third, first being "Last Crusade", second "Ark", third "Crystal skill, and fourth "Temple of Doom". Even with the cheesy script the movie delivered some good action sequences. I did get annoyed with Kate's sad Russian accent. I mean can't we get someone that does a better Russian accent? That bugged me the whole movie. But I did think about it and since it is an Indiana Jones movie the villains are going to be overdone. They could have played out the character development with Marion and the kid better too. I feel that whole sequence was rushed. I would have liked to get to know the kid better before he was thrown into the mix suddenly looking for Jones.

Overall I liked the movie, if I have friends that want to see it, I'll probably go see it in the theater again.

Nothing compares to Raiders. One of the great action films of all time, if not one of the best films of all time. I went in knowing not to compare to the previous 3, because after a 19 year gap, it's hard to pick up where you left off. Spielberg worked with what he had, and I don't think the blame lies in his court. Lucas has officially lost it. The last 3 Star Wars films were corny as hell, and this has his stamp all over it as well. As with most Hollywood films, it gets lost in a CG over compensation. The original, 27 years ago, had better pratical effects! Ford was good, Shia was good, Karen Allen was a complete waste.

Well, I guess it's finally happened. It's become so fashionable since the Special Edition Star Wars Trilogy among film critics to hate everything that George Lucas does that they're now complaining when things he works on don't suck enough, so they can't hate him enough. I'm not in favor of a whole lot of Lucas' most recent efforts, but this one is far and away better than the Star Wars Prequels or Special Editions. I think if a lot of film critics were honest with themselves (particularly the ones that were young when the first Indiana Jones and Star Wars films were in theaters) they'd find a lot of their disappointments with the recent Lucas films is the fact that when they re-watched those films to prepare for the new editions/installments, they found that they didn't live up to the impossibly wonderful view of them they had from their youth.

They stole the ending from the 1st X-Files movie! Did anyone else notice it was the same ending? Lucas is a franchise creating and then killing fool.

The 1st half was good, especially the commie-hating Republican Jones and I liked the back story filling in what he had been up to, in part, over the last 20 years but the movie lost me in the last half. I will only see it 5 more times ... today.

The action in the movie was great as usual, but I really had a hard time with the aliens aspects. As a Indy fan I've bought into the occult and religous issues of the past movies, but aliens goes to far. This would put this movie fourth of all of the Indy films. Please don't let there be a fifth.

It was an abomination. The most CGI I can think of in IJ3 was when the plane was chasing the car and then blew up... This movie has terrible, unrealistic effects. At least the 1st and 3rd movies had somewhat realistic effects that were believeable and not TOO over the top. In the end this movie ranks slightly below the 2nd movie, actually not just slightly it is the basement of the series.

So much potential and so little delivery. The Indiana Jones movies represented all things good about my childhood – this one unfortunately
just felt empty. I know that you can't go home again..but at least you could sit in your old chair and feel comfortable...this was just not the case with this film.

I grew up on Spielberg and Lucas films and I especially loved Indiana Jones. I was 8 years old when the 1st one came out and I actually have a scar on my left pointer finger from the knife wound I got while trying to make a whip out of an old hose.
As for the new Indy film, it had a lot of great things about it, but as I told a friend, I love pizza and I love ice cream, but I'm not sure I like pizza flavored icecream. For me that statement is the mixture of the two worlds of historic Indy and Close Entounters esque Sci Fi... I like them both independently, but I don't know if I like them together. I did enjoy the Father, Son connection that leaves the door open for future adventures. No matter what I'll always be a Spielberg fan.

I am a huge Indy fan.. with that being said... there was a major flaw right from the beginning. Harrison Ford is toooo old. The movie is just one big jokefest on his age. 15 minutes into the movie you know exacly what's coming at you and I would say that was entertainment.

I understand that we all go to the movies to escape reality, but come on. We have seen this tired act before. This movie was American Graffiti, Indy, close encounters and National treasure all tied together. We were told that George waited 19 years for the perfect script.... WOW! What a story. INDY meets aliens and gets married to Marion.

Ironman blew this right out of the water... for that matter, so did Speed Racer. Here's hoping George can get Al Pacino to do SCARFACE 2...

Was the climactic alien scene somewhat "Mummyesque"? Yes. Was the story a little corny at times? Yes. But did 99.9% of the viewers walk out of the theater with a smile on their faces? Yes. George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, and Shia LeBouf did not disappoint. It's not "Raiders", it's not "The Last Crusade"...it is what it is...a graceful exit to one of our most beloved cinematic heroes, Indiana Jones.

WOW! Those of you who are so critical of the movie are probably the same ones who watch "Napoleon Dynamite" over and over. I went in to this movie to be entertained and I was! Most of you act as though every movie should be Academy Award material. It was no Raiders but I've already seen Raiders! I guess my generation (I'm 48) has learned to relax and just enjoy watching Harrison Ford. Shia LaBeouf is a fantastic rising young star and I enjoyed watching him stand his professional ground with a star of Mr. Ford's calibur. It was a joy to see Karen Allen again too. It's nice to know that some actresses age the way most of us do and can still hold their own on screen. Next time go see Horton hears a who! I heard the CG was great in that one!

I enjoyed some of the "tip of the hat" to past Indy and lucas movies and I went along for the ride until the end ( I wont give anything away) That when I was no longer able to suspend my reality as a movie goer. I basically threw up my hands ans said- No- this is beyond ridiculous, even for Jones. He needed a better quest and one or two less car chases and more story.

after seeing the movie, i couldn't figure what was wrong until i read most of these comments, but i got it now: lucas' writing. he screwed up the last 3 star wars and i would NEVER admit those movies weren't great. of course i loved indy just cause it's indy. sure i can deal w/ aliens, heck i dealt w/ the old knight, pulling out people's heart and having them survive, and the 'beautiful' angels that stole everyone's souls.
no flow, little character development (though you saw bits of it happening, i.e., Mutt's happiness after the car crashed into Marcus' statue and Indy's disapproving look, reminiscent of INdy's happines in getting rid of the Nazis and his Dad's reponse during the motorcycle scene in Crusades), and i must be used to CGI's cause i didn't realize until later that i also didn't like those parts (the groundhogs, the ants). it was always REAL disgusting animals! that was the best part.
oh well, i went along for the ride and it was ok.

The film was ok, but it's really not the same. I think the problem was that it was rushed...some of the action was rushed, too much dialogue squeezed in, not enough depth to the characters. Karen Allen didn't get enough attention. What I'll call the crypt keepers didn't serve any real purpose. Cate Blanchett was great. Shia LeBeouf was actually pretty good. I can see him taking over the lead for the franchise. Overall, it was nice to see this old-fashioned storyline again, but it was a little muddled with the new-age CGI and weak writing. It was like a cross between National Treasure and The X Files, and I'm actually more interested to see the X Files sequel............B-

I couldnt have said it better -> “In the first one we allowed our selves to believe dust in a golden ark can melt faces. In the second one, magic stones could restore life to a village, and in the third that a man could live 1000 years with the power of the Grail. So is it that much of a strecth to belive Aliens helped build the pyramids. The problem with people who spur and criticise, is they’ve forgotten they’re not kids anymore. These movies can’t capture their imagination the way they could 20, 30 years ago. I checked my brain at the door and enjoyed it. And my 10 years old loved it too much the way i did back in 1981 as a 10 year old. Stop the crustiness. Who knows maybe you won’t age so quickly and you might be able to crack a whip when you’re 65 too.”

I have to completely agree. I loved it, as did my daughter. What ever happened to actually being entertained by entertainment? There's enough negativity in the world, go see a movie and have fun.

I saw the movie on opening day. I was a huge fan of the original trilogy, with Raiders being the best and Last Crusade second. Temple of Doom didn't do it for me, but it was still enjoyable.

What I cannot fathom is how many people on this and other threads have spent so much time overanalyzing Crystal Skull. First off, ALL of the movies were implausible. Melting faces from an open Ark? A guy pulling a beating heart out of a chest? Eternal life from a cup of water? So one has to ask, what is so darn implausible about ALIENS?

People, this is not a movie that is supposed to evoke deep thought. It is an Indiana Jones movie – pure escapism, action, suspense, just plain fun. I'd rank this installment better than Temple of Doom in a millisecond – anyone remember all of Kate Capshaw's whining and screaming? I'd say it was 3rd out of the 4 movies easily. I didn't think about the aliens as being any more farfetched than any of the other movies. And for the first time in a long time, I was thoroughly entertained by an escapist adventure movie. It was great – PERIOD.

I'd have opened with Marion, Ox and Mutt, trying to escape from the commies in a South American city. The two are captured and Mutt barely escapes with a note from Marion to find Indy! Mutt confronts Indy on the campus and tries to pull him away from his staid college professorship. As Mutt gets more and more desperate, and the commies close in Indy realizes it's Marion he's talking about during the motorcycle chase and they're off! Cate Blanchett should have been WAY more evil, Indy more comitted, Marion more angry, Mutt more crazy. If I wanted to see a movie with regular people I'd watch my family reunion tapes. The alien stuff didn't bother me that much, but-
Cut to: tag on inside of refridgerator before the blast reads: "Lead Lined Refridgerator" YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!!

Also: CGI SUCKS!!!!
It's fine when creating environment(buildings, jungle,etc) But when it's used to create moving things, people or things actors need to react to, it looks totally fake. Bring back real props!!!!!!

This movie is NOT great, but it doesn't completely suck either. It's a typical Indiana Jones film. It has it's moments of clever scenes and dialogue, exactly the kind of things to expect from Indy films. I recently read on these blogs that people are placing "Crystal Skull" #3 among the 4 films. I would agree with that (in order; Raiders, Crusade, Skull, Doom). The only real part of this movie that bothered me was the end; when it turned into an alien abduction/Roswell situation. I thought that was a "jumping the shark" thing. Overall, I think this is a movie well worth the 19 year wait and I will buy it on DVD when it is released. It's sad that the actor who played Marcus Brody passed away in 1992. I would have loved to see him back, as well as Salah. These 2 characters really would have made this film better. People can complain all they want, but think of the other (possible) option. Would the audience have really accepted Indy as a mentor to a younger archeologist who did all the dirty work? I really don't think so. Fans wanted Harrison Ford back and we got him.

The problem is that after so many years, they lost the idea of the characters. Marion Ravenwood would have decked Indy the first time she saw him, and she would have been the tough liberated woman with a few more years on her from Raiders. In this, she's like the older creepy woman on prozac with a schoolgirl crush on Indy. And I LOVE Karen Allen, but she was horrible in this, and THAT I blame on Spielberg who didn't know how to reign her in.

The film played more like The Mummy 4 than it did Indiana Jones 4, and that is the other problem. This falls on Speilberg and Lucas who have left their conventional moviemaking ways and relied far too much on computer generated effects and left reality behind. Indiana Jones was fun because it was a fantastic story in a world that looked real. Now the world looks like paper machie and balsa wood and the story is about as flimsy as the sets.

I don't think anyone should be spared to blame here. From the cast, that sadly just looked like they were embarrassing themselves, to the producers who didn't find a story that worked or made any sense at many times, to the director who couldn't pull it together, or the writer who couldn't make it as fun as the series had been, everyone should be held accountable here.

And I'm not one who loves to just blast movies. I really REALLY wanted to love this. I bought tickets to the midnight show at the Arclight the moment they went on sale and had front row in the center of the balcony because I wanted this experience to be perfect.

Loved it – great movie. Not dissapointed. The alien angle with the destruction of the temple was a bit MUCH, but it did fall in line with the other Indy films – they all had a mystical-less believable element.

it was a fun ride.

if you didn't like it, you need a colon cleaning with the dreaded apparatus.

The movie was terrible. Way too Disney. Plot and script was written with such a lazy attempt. No way it took 19 years to write this crap. BS! They should apologize to the fans for this terrible performance by everyone. Huge disappointment.

I'm referring to the fans unrealistic high expectations. If you cant just go into a theater and switch your mindset to relax and enjoyment, then you should never......evvvvvveeeeeerrrrrr go see another sequel again.

I rank Indy as follows:

Temple of Doom
Raders of the Lost Ark
Crystal Skull
Crusade

The blame game for those who are disappointed......Well you'd have to blame all four (Lucas, Ford, Speilberg, Writer). Because Ford and Speilberg and Lucas all had to agree on the script.

But you know what? Who cares? They all three knew it would be panned hard by some and loved by others. It made a ton of cash over the weekend and that's the real bottom line.

The movie was plain, old-fashioned fun. I loved the way they worked the age of Jones into the plot and made it a bonus-a "you can still do great things at any age" sort of feel. The movie made me laugh, jump, alert, smile. What more can you ask of Hollywood? My hat's off to Lucas, Spielberg, Ford, Blanchett, and anyone else involved in creating this fun, not to be taken serious, film!

Hands down a FANTASTIC MOVIE!!! Those ripping on it have forgotten how to enjoy a movie and have little to no imagination! This holds up to the Indiana lore and has a wonderful ending! All Indiana Jones movies have unbelieveable plots, why should this one be any different? It rocks! Ignore the bad reviews and just have fun with this movie!!!!

well, I'm glad I'm not alone about how I feel about the movie. Yes, I liked it for the most part and applauded several times while watching, but ....... I know I won't be going back to see it a 2nd time or buying the dvd. The main reason - the acting!! Didn't Harrison Ford seemed to just be sleep walking most the time while he was delivering his lines?? And I loved that Karen Allen was back, but did she HAVE to be grinning like an idiot in every scene that she was in???

Having seen the three previous Indy movies at the theater on initial release, I was very much looking forward to this one. However, I knew that no movie could live up to the hype and anticipation surrounding Indy IV. I remember the anticipation, and subsequent disappointment with Temple of Doom, so I prepared myself. Temple of Doom had some great set pieces, but was too dark and intense to be "fun" and Willie's constant screaming was downright grating! What were they thinking? I like Temple of Doom more now than I did then. It has aged well, probably because the intensity-ante has been raised exponentially since then, so it seems relatively mild these days.

So, I went in to Crystal Skull with appropriate expectations, and knowing enough about the plot to probably avoid any surprise are-you-kidding-me? moments. In general: I liked it! I put it in 3rd place, above Temple of Doom. I think the themes of the film are right for the decade in which it takes place. Like they other Indy movies, you simply have to approach it as fantasy. Raiders and Last Crusade accepted more easily because they use Christian symbolism and mythology, which are pretty much ingrained in western audiences already; if you already have some sort of belief in a God who can part seas, raise the dead, and bring fire down from the sky, it's not too much more of a stretch to say he can't melt some Nazis and keep a faithful knight alive for 700 years. (Just like some character in the Old Testament, by the way.) Even Temple of Doom used the biblical myth in a way; the idea that evil exists in as much a supernatural form as good does.

Crystal Skull relies on a different myth, one that is relatively popular, but considered by many to be corny right out of the box. It takes a much higher level of suspension of disbelief to accept the direction of this film. I think that's why this film has created such a divide. It really is fundamentally different than the others in that way. For myself, I enjoyed and will be seeing it again today. But I have no argument with those who come down on the other side of it.

Overall I thought it was a good film. It didn't quite live up to the previous three but it was a fitting addition. I loved the first half of the movie, but I felt the second half ran away with itself. Some parts were incredibly corny such as Shia Labouff's character swinging across the jungle with monkeys like Tarzan, and at the end when the alien came back to life only to vaporize everyone into another dimension...after 20 years of script writing i was disappointed they didn't come up with a better storyline. The swarming ants were also way too CGI...it just takes away the realism of the past movies. I was also disappointed that John Williams did not write a more dramatic score for the film like in the previous three. The film had some very great moments and it was a lot fun to watch, but there was nothing that really stood out in this one except for the atom bomb explosion which happens at the very beginning of the film. The directing was great, loved the depiction of American culture in the '50s, but the script was terrible.

ENJOY WITH CAUTION. This fourth installment has some strangled dialogue and forced scenes but lives up to the legacy of Indiana. All the movies are based on supernatural items/scenarios. Only Temple of Doom took it to a comic-book-feel level with rail cars that jump a gap and land on their wheels again. I hated that about TOD. They got back to a more real feel with The Last Crusade (except the plane passing them in the tunnel) but more real/believable characters and situations. I find this one slips often into the TOD style and it bothered me. Most of it was good but key points they push to the realm of “C’mon, give me a break” . The old Indy did not rely on ILM digital effects and that grainy old-school approach is what made the franchise so relatable.

It was great to see the team back together and see the stunts they pull, the elaborate sets etc…but I left somehow feeling cheated. It is almost forgettable.

It isn't an Oscar winner, but it was still Indiana Jones, after a long absence. I liked it, I wasn't blown away, but I liked it. I don't think they were trying for a life-altering film anyway, they were just having fun.

I have to say, as much as I love those Indy films from the 80's, Crystal Skull was simply a painful viewing experience. It looked bad, was incoherent, and replaced wit with cartoonish stupidity. Frankly the entire film was embarrassing–happily the crowd at my screening seemed to feel the same way.

Now I can accept certain films as escapism, though I refuse to admit all films should be viewed as simple entertainment. However I do ask for some logic behind the actions that demand my disbelief. The most unforgivable aspect of this film was its treating of the audience as children instead of creating set pieces that allowed for that moment of child-like awe we all go to event movies for.

I was disappointed cos it did not measure up to 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'. Thats probably unfair. On the whole its definitely a good movie. But we dont want just 'good' from Indy. We want swashbuckling brilliance! Thats exactly whats missing.

1. Raiders of the Lost ark
2. Last Crusade / Crystal Skull
4. Temple of Doom'

I absolutely agree with those who say Lucas should never write another script again.

Other than that, I'm firmly in the camp of those who enjoyed the movie for seeing their "old friends" again. All the fuss about aliens is just silly. As others have pointed out, we bought a box that could melt your face off, rocks that had mystical powers and a cup that gave everlasting life. 50's movies were about aliens and commies. I'm just amazed the ants weren't bigger á la "Them!"

Although Indy/Ford was missing the twinkle in his eye, that could be understood since we're now looking at a man settling into his later years. They could have explored Spalko/Blanchett's psychic weapon ideas a little more – perhaps a scene showing her conducting a quick experiment instead of her monologue about the mind weapon. Yes, she exposed Indy to the skull but we didn't really see any effects other than the end results with Ox/Hurt. I would have rather seen that than the over-long, over-done jungle chase scene. And it was sad that Marion/Allen didn't have much to do other than moon around over being reunited with Indy. Where's her spark? Her fire and fight? Where is her frying pan!? The steering wheel was a poor substitute.

I would love to have seen what a different writer would have done with this but done is done.

What I wanted and expected was a popcorn movie to take my kids to and that is what I got. It was like going to an amusement park, lots of rides, scary creatures, and a familiar buddy (Indy) to take you through it. Forget the high brow reviewers...everyone with me loved it!

Anyone who knows anything about ANYthing knows that Aliens DID, in fact, create the pyramids ...

They came through the STARGATE and built them as a landing port so they could enslave the human race ... darnit!

Besides, Indiana Jones has ALWAYS fought the bad guys of the era. and whoever said it above is right. in the 50's Roswell and Communism were HUGE contributors to national hysteria.

I love how we, as people, have become so self righteous and judgemental that we can't even go to a movie anymore and enjoy it for what it is, entertainment. No one likes anything that anyone is doing anymore because everyone seems to think that they are the be all and end all authority on movies ...

Every time you go to a movie suspend your disbelief and approach it with the wide eyed enthusiasm of a child ... I think you'll find your movie going experiences will make you a LOT happier.

Also, I find that I was a lot happier with a movies when I paid $5 to get in instead of $12 ... i'm just sayin.

I will agree that there were a lot of flaws in this movie. If I ranked them, I would put it 4th in terms of my favorite Indy films. Many people are complaining about the aliens. Lucas said this would be set in the 50s with that same type of sci-fi vive that most of the B-movies of that era had. If you know that going in, the movie is great. Not the best of the series, but still good summer fun.

I think it is great to listen to people bash Temple of Doom. I watched all the movies again before I saw this one and Doom was really good. It's like the only way you are a "true" fan is if you will agree that Doom is terrible. These are the same "fans" that will make you state Jedi is horrible if you want to be a "true" Star Wars fan. I promise that none of these people were saying this when they saw those movies the 1st time, only after it became the "cool" thing to say if you want to be a "real" fan.

I loved the other 3 Indie films. Having said that: I have been reading comments about the new film from all directions for weeks now, along with pieces of plot. I have decided to wait for the DVD – on sale – to purchase somewhere down the line – maybe. What turns me off is aliens being included in the plot. Other movies I have seen, including the X-Files movie of the 90's, proved themselves to be so synthetic and untelligent that I balk at spending money and time on them. Alien and green goo, etc, indeed. It is a good thing that Lucas did not get his way with the script as much as he would have liked. Aliens and Indie do not mix.

I was in shock at the end. I thought Indy's skepticism regarding the whole alien thing would be capitalized upon and followed through with. In my mind, Indy is the icon of the adventure genre. This film was like Spielberg decided to mix Indy and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Out of the 4, this is definitely the fourth. Both my wife and I were disappointed with this film.

George Lucas should not be allowed to ever put pen to paper again! His inability to construct engaging dialogue was on glaring display this time– I was actually expecting Cate Blanchett's character to start spouting off about catching "Moose and Squirrel!" As I watched the movie I kept thinking about how hard Spielberg and Ford were working to rise above this "archeologists meet aliens" dreck. Stargate has been working that trope for years, and does it much better. The Indiana Jones films really sizzle when they stick to earthbound mythology.

Please George, no more! Let someone else do the writing from now on– all movies (even parodies of B movies) need characters with depth that exceeds cardboard.

Ranked last for me, unfortunately. There never seemed to be a sense of urgency among the characters. Also, we the audience are supposed to suspend disbelief, but it's lazy filmmaking when the actors are also allowed to do it. No one "acted" as though they were in any real peril. And there were many perilous moments, unless you know you'll survive anything. I didn't mind the aliens, either, I just would've liked better motivation for everyone to go through all that. Also, the traitor buddy shoulda been shot like the saber fighter in Raiders, IMO.

No genuine stakes, no genuine urgency, no genuine emotion anywhere (unless you count cloying nostalgia). And it took years to get to this script? Small as it was, I thought the opening credits scene on the road was the most suspenseful and beautifully executed part of the movie. Shia swinging through the jungle, accompanied by friendly CGI monkeys, might count as the least. And the CGI finale? Who cared? Seriously, who actually cared about that? What gets me is how forgiving some people are about it, saying "it's an Indiana Jones movie; you don't expect much and it's fun." Looks like nostalgia (not to mention the sheer amount of money put on screen) won the day for many, but just imagine... it could have been good!

I went and seen the movie Saturday nite and the movie did exactly what amovie is suppose to do== entertain. Love the movie,harrison ford was great and Shia Lebourfwas excellent as Henry Jones111 aka MUTT. love iit!

Indiana Jones and the COTCS is a classic pop-corn movie. I smiled during the whole thing seeing Indiana Jones on the screen again. While not as good admittedly as Raiders or Crusade it was nevertheless enjoyable. People expecting it to be the best of the series probably have too high of expectations. Everyone is 20 years older and it just isn't realistic to think it's going to be the same. In my opinion it was still great and very enjoyable. I really hope they release it on BluRay along with the rest of the films.

YES! Finally someone says it. Koepp is at best competent, often less than that. He writes a lot of blockbusters people see but hardly love, much less adore for the story or dialogue. I don't know if Kasdan or Kaufman would've taken the job, but Frank Darabont was reportedly writing a script until he got fired...what happened???

We enjoyed the movie for what it was: a Saturday afternoon matinee of adventure, bad guys and heroes.
The plot was convoluted and rambling – and sadly hunky Ford looked bored throughout the film (and definitely lost his sense of humor from the other Indy films).
Raiders still stands as number one, but then we all know nothing compares to the first time...

I went in with extremely low expectations, and I ended up leaving the movie very satisfied!!! I don't know why everyone is ranking this one 3rd – it's second in my book by far! The movie is everything I hoped it would be! I think people have forgotten how to enjoy a movie. Open your mind and imagination a bit and just have fun and enjoy the experience! I will be going to see this movie again in the theaters – the way Lucas and Speilberg would want you to see it! Open your mind and be a kid again!

What " could have been " makes me sad.The first of the movie was decent,but when the movie turned into a bad episode of the " X-Files " I just rolled my eyes.Indiana Jones isnt science fiction,nor is it about aliens from outer space.I knew the movie was in trouble when I could count all the ridiculous scenes on more than one hand.

***SPOILERS***

Indiana Jones survives a nuclear explosion in an old refrigerator ? His son swings from the trees like he's been doing it all his life,then suddenly commands a troop of monkeys to attack his enemies ? Indiana Jones and his cronies fall over THREE waterfalls,yet do not seem to be out of breath ?? Cate Blanchett gives her worst " Natasha Fatale " comedic interpretation of a villain ? Egad,I would expect such sillyness in a movie with Lucas,but with Spielberg too ? It's almost as bad as " The Phantom Menance. " To each his own,but wow,was this a letdown.It should have never been sent to theater in the condition it is now.Talk about " mailing it in. "

Fun, fun, fun....took my two kids to see it (17 & 12) and they really enjoyed it. I did too. I fail to understand the need to go see a movie and expect it to be "real". I get enough "real" – I want to escape for a couple hours and this movie did the trick for me. We love the "Indiana" franchise so it was like sitting down with an old friend after a long, long time.....

Anyone saying Indy and the Crystal Skull, and the Star Wars prequels are "B-movie dreck" and the original trilogies are examples of fine art, needs to have his head examined. The original Star Wars and Indy movies were BASED on b-movie dreck, were intended to CELEBRATE b-movie dreck, and that's exactly what they were. That you were a kid when you saw them the first time has a lot to do with how you view the new trilogies today. You're not a kid anymore, or won't allow yourself to be one for two hours.

Crystal Skull is the best Indy since Raiders, hands down, and has all the elements that made the original one of the best adventure films in history, BECAUSE of its b-movie roots.

Stay home. Save your $9.50. This movie is a piece of crap that should never have been made. Thanks a lot Steve and George. Instead of letting talented people make this movie and continue this great story, you two clowns decided that your corny ideas, forced humor, moronic storyline, cliche dialogue and fake looking, computer generated unbelieveable action scenes would work. WRONG!

Stay home and don't waste your time or money on this waste of time and money.

By the way. I am a HUGE Indiana Jones fan. I wasn't happy about anything this toilet full of bad Lucas ideas had to offer.

Considering how much movie tickets cost these days, you hope you get your money's worth. Going to see an Indiana Jones film should be a no-brainer. Unfortunately if you're going expecting to relive the glory days of the trilogy, you'll be in for a disappointment. The plot read like a B-movie hash of 1950's sci-fi and Indiana Jones lore. Without spoilers, I was also unconvinced by Shia LaBeouf as Mutt Williams and couldn't help but feel that he was trying to carry the plot. This isn't entirely his fault; after all, an actor can only portray the character written for him.

In its favor, there is finally some resolution as to what happens to Dr. Jones and Marcus and I'm delighted they brought back Karen Allen as Marion but I wish she'd had a larger role. There's some nifty clue-work and action scenes reminiscent of National Treasure: Book of Secrets and I liked how they incorporated animals into the film for humor, even though it occasionally gets over-the-top. My ranking for the Indiana Jones canon would be 3-2-4-1 with 1 being last only because it's so blood-thirsty and horror-themed. Overall, if you're an Indy fan you'll be glad you saw it but the film doesn't significantly add to the series from where it left off 18 years ago.

Crystal Skull is a really bad movie, but nostalgia works in it's favor. Lucas pulls the same junk as Episodes 1-3. While not quite as bad, an ongoing animated prairie dogs gag is as good of an idea as Darth Vader building C3PO. For some reason the CGI is terrible. We go back 5 years in computer-technology to bring us a sword fight on the back of a couple jeeps. Thanks. Anyone who thinks it's better than Temple of Doom or Last Crusade is kidding them self.

This Indy movie was not bad, but not great. After 19 years, I was hoping for something great, although I knew nothing could compare to the brilliance of Raiders. It was great to see Indiana Jones again, although he did seem more mellow with age. I wish they wouldn't have gone to South America again, since the original movie opened there & those scenes were classic; this time, it's far from that. I also thought the opening with the cars racing with Elvis playing was a horrible way to open an Indy film; I think its only purpose was to remind us that this is the 50's, not the 30's, like the other 3. The fade of the Paramount logo to a groundhog mound was also weak; they could have done great things instead. I also thought Cate Blanchette made a weak villian, & her accent was poor & seemed to occasionally sound British, not Russian. There were some scenes that dragged a bit for me, unlike the other 3 movies. I also didn't love the alien thing. Karen Allen could have had more to do in the movie, & it's too bad Indy is the Russians' captive for a good chunk of the film. I was really surprised to see the ark again for a few seconds; I'm surprised the audience didn't react to this.
Overall, this movie wasn't bad, but I just think they could have done better after such a long time. The 2nd movie used to be my least favourite; now this one is.
Lucas suggested maybe doing another film, with Indy's son as the main character, & Indy tagging along, like Sean Connery did in the 3rd film; this would be downright awful- Indy is nobody's sidekick; he's the main man! I'd rather they stop now, instead of really ruining something great.

I loved it. It's probably tied with Last Crusade for being my second favorite Indy film. The only thing I would have changed would have been Shia going all Tarzan on us. But I was surprised at him. He actually came off as rather likeable in this one. Good movie. I'll be seeing it again and tomorrow and picking up the dvd

It was too hard for me to buy into the Indy meets the Aliens plot. The end scene has been done so many times in a few different ways (think the x-files and the Mummy returns) so it lost a lot of the punch it could have had.

HORRIBLE! ATROCIOUS! I remember seeing Raiders and wanting to be in the film because it was so much fun, filled with urgency and originality now I don't even want to see one! Indy 4 was the Superman III of the franchise, actually No wait, it was Superman IV of the Indy films, Spielberg and Lucas should just sell the rights to their Indy films to Morgan Creek Films, they do a great job at ruining franchises (Exorcist vs. Indy Anyone?)

Amazing how EVERYONE is a brilliant film school graduate who knows the difference between good and bad direction and editing!

Maybe you folks should just check your brains at the door and try to have a little fun in your lives. No wonder so many people are so unfulfilled: they feel the need to criticize everything without knowing what they're talking about. I would love to see half the people commenting in charge of a big motion picture and see the dreck they come up with.

I had to watch it twice. The first time I thought the film was slightly above mediocre and wasn't too happy with the direction it went in the later third of the film (sci-fi theme). At first the acting from Ford seemed really stilted and didn't feel like the old Indy I saw in the previous films which i revisted numerous times recently but after the jet engine on rails scene you can see and hear the old Indy back in form. After seeing it the second time I enjoyed the film more and thought it had made a good return to form overall but I still didn't agree with the sci-fi theme in the later third. Indy's whole theme is based on myth, legend and mystical powers/ancient magic in my opinion. When the sci-fi element got introduced it didn't seem to mesh with the Indy mythos very well. It felt very foreign. Also this film didn't have a very good musical theme to it. Yes you have the classic Indy theme and you got to hear the Ark theme in the beginning and Marion's theme later on but there wasn't any stand out theme for the Russians or anyone else for that matter. Shortround and the Thuggies themes are really outstanding in Temple and Last Crusade had a great "father/son" theme to it also but the music in Crystal Skull just didn't have the impact or catchiness the other films had. It was as if Mr. Williams ran out of ideas or inspiration for the score. Overall i still like the film but it's the least favorite of the four.

There's been a generational "alternative" or "counter-glamour" attitude that's prevailed for about the last decade and a half, and I think a lot of the criticism of Lucas and Spielberg is akin to what kids do on the cusp of puberty when they start sadistically destroying their toys in the backyard. We're in a new era of film that I think tries more to emulate that era of popular film that Lucas has paid homage to in Star Wars and in the Indy series, right up to this current one. I think critics are starting to catch up with the idea, as evidenced by their more careful criticisms at Cannes this year, that they're "not quite dressed for the party". Some critics feel compulsively obsessed to take a pickier low road while the rest of us can see the cinematic forest AND the trees, and just enjoy the ride.
I love how the new movie places Indy – a man "passing through history" into a new historical milieau and even places him on the rim of the future. This one feels like "the last great ride of Indiana Jones" and toward that end, everything hits the mark. It would have been nice if we could've had "Jonsed" two or three more times since "Last Crusade – and there might've been good, average or lesser ones for critics to complain about, as they fashionably love to do. But I think Lucas and Spielberg have given us only the best ones in the Indy series and deserve all the "fortune and glory' they can get from 'em.

What a disappointment. ALIENS???!!! Okay, I really get the commie theme and that played well, but aliens? Come on, Lucus, get a grip.
There should have been more in regards to the Indy Jr. stuff. The best scene was the argument between Indy and Marian. The dialogue was grade school and totally unbelievable. I loved 1 and 3 and I was acutally depressed after seeing this. I say do another with Shia as the new Indy dragging his aging father around with a more plausible theme – to go out on a good note. Use something else as the treasure – anything else but aliens. It was an ego-dirven piece for George and it failed. What a sad waste of my money, and what a let down to the image of the great Indiana Jones. How sad.

Better than Temple of Doom for sure. However, the alien skull plot device was just a little too far fetched for me, and you feel disappointed at the end of the movie, not because of the actual film, but because you know this is the end of the series. If Lucas and Spielberg had made this move 19 years ago and chosen to make Last Crusade now, the series would have ended perfectly. Too bad.

When Lucas first mentioned his terrible idea to Harrison and Steven, they were both unenthusiastic, but the stubborn Lucas pushed on.

Through several screenwriters, the idea eventually came to screen.

The real question, what would Frank Darabont's script have been like? Spielberg is on record saying he thought it was the best script since Raiders, but that is not the script they shot...

Because Lucas rejected it.

I put the blame squarely on Lucas. The mistakes made in the new Star Wars movies were the same mistakes found in Crystal Skull: too much green screen, convoluted plots, the wrong tone, and an underestimation of the American intellect.

Finally, was not Act Three of Crystal Skull just horrible on a dramatic/character/story level? They just waltz into a cavern and "witness" all the events unfold. This is far from the layered/witty endings of the other films.

I saw the movie and it was like visiting an old friend. it had the same magic that was present in the previous films. Harrison Ford was terrific. Age has just made him better. This is a great summer film. Entertaining!

The movie was better than Temple of Doom, but not by much. I found the beginning of the movie slow going (not the big bang beginnings of the previous movies), the villain overcooked (Cate Blanchett is better in three dimensional roles where there is more inner personal conflict), and the writing innane. Lucas should not be writing scripts. Have we not suffered enough after the last three Star Wars movies? Best parts of the movie? The return of Marion Ravenswood (Karen Allen) who looked as if she was incredibly happy to be there, Shia LaBeuf (surprisingly) who became a man for his role, and the minimal use of CG (especially with the jungle car chase). But lets face it...for 19 years later, it's pretty damn good.

The negative backlash that occurred over the weekend with regard to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is largely due to the fact that the media has been hyping this movie ever since it was announced a new Indiana Jones movie was being made. The same thing happened in 1998 in the run up to Star Wars Episode I. Unfortunately, when the hype is this strong, it is virtually impossible to live up to it. One has to wonder whether any Indiana Jones movie could live up to the unreachable expectations of some of these "critics" and fans.

The really sad thing about our culture is that people have forgotten what going to the movies is for. Not every movie needs to be dissected like the Godfather or Schindler's List. Some movies are simply meant to be entertaining. And on that level – at least for me – the new Indiana Jones movie was as entertaining as they come. To compare its value to Iron Man or anything else is ignorant and unfair. Just go to the movies and try to be entertained. If you go in with those humble expectations, then maybe you might just have fun along the way.

This movie was well done and if all the critics would take a pill and calm down they'd probably enjoy the movie as much as I did. Sure it had the element of the x-files in it, but that aside it was exactly what I expected an Indiana Jones movie to be.

Harrison Ford is proving that he is still physically capable to do movies such as these and I loved to see him back in action again. Well done!!!!!!!!

People who are crying over how George Lucas has ruined Indiana Jones and therefore ruined their lives need to grow up and actually get a life. Is this movie as great as Raiders of the Lost Ark? No, but I didn't expect it would be. All I wanted was a fun, entertaining movie, and that's exactly what I got. People are also missing the boat on realizing that just as the first 3 were set in the 30's and therefore evocative of the movies that were popular in the 30's, this one, which is set in 1957, is evocative of the movies that were popular during that time. Hence the evil commies and the aliens. And as others have pointed out, the first 3 had major supernatural elements to them, so what makes the aliens so different? I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, as did my parents, who are both nearly 80. If you didn't like it, fine, but don't go telling those of us who did like the movie that there's something wrong with us. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions! I respect yours, so please respect mine!

I love this type of film and I'm always going to a movie just to have fun, but this thing was a piece of crap. I hated it. The plot and the ending was one of the worst I've ever seen. It was so bad you start going through the film picking out all the things that didn't make sense. What a waste of opportunity.

I'm 40 years old and saw the first three Indy movies in the theater, so I was happy to take my three kids (16,15,10) to the fourth one. The reviews were good enough that I had some hope we would like it, and we all thought it was great. The 'bad' bits were so much better then the bad bits in so many other movies we've seen that they were good.

Sure, it was a ridiculous movie! What was up with the aliens? What was Lucas thinking? (nothing, as usual–none of us can forgive him for what he did to Star Wars with the prequels–killing baby Jedi, I mean, come on!) But Indy 4 was so FUN! It was a fabulous "B" movie and exactly the kind of movie I am happy to take my kids to.

I wanted to like this movie. I really did. I hoped to come out of the theater feeling like I'd seen a great adventure movie starring old friends who just happen to be heros. Instead, I left the theater cursing under my breath at a hairbrained script and lazy direction. Only Steven Spielberg and George Lucas could give Indiana Jones a "Commie" adversary with all the malevolence of Jar-Jar Binks. Anyone over 13 needs to bring a book and pinlight to the movie. After the first 20 minutes you'll be grateful you did.

My husband and I saw it Saturday and loved it. Yes, it's silly and implausible but all the Indy movies are that way. It's supposed to just be a fun, actiony update of the corny B movies of the past. I agree that Spielberg and Ford really sold the movie. Without them and the rest of the cast it wouldn't have been as good. The majority of the audience we saw it with seemed to really enjoy it. If there were any people who disliked it they were definately in the minority. It's not for everyone but I really liked it. And for the record I'm not a big action movie person.. hated Transformers, the only good thing about that movie being Shia. Anyway, I didn't come into Indy 4 with a lot of expectations having heard the mixed reviews, but was pleasantly surprised. It's a lot of fun.

The movie was long, sections were rehashed, there was nothing inventive, and the characters didn't even -figure out- anything. The whole story was about them following what'd been figured out and getting to the aliens eventually. There hardly any plot progression and what little was there was all done by exposition. Indy was a trailguide as they got beat up along the way.

Karen Allen was the bright energy in the movie, and the ending was perfunctory and satisfactory, but in general, there was no pop or energy.

Lone exception – the nuclear town was perfectly set, colored, and had wit. Indy truly looked out of place in another film.

Other than that, it was just ok. No, no one's going to ask for their cash back, but this franchise is over, and that's ok.

I knew nothing about the plot before going into it. Aware that it was probably being kept under wraps for a reason, I was prepared for disappointment, but told my friends, "The only way I'll call this an all out bad film is if they throw aliens into the mix." Well, there you have it.

This movie was crap from the moment that ridiculous cartoon of a prairie dog pokes its head out of the ground. The pupppet in Caddy Shack 2 was more convincing. It all went downhill from there.

The plot was utterly predictable, the acting was horrendous, the Russians were boring and far from menacing (the Nazis will always be the best damn villains ever), and it was about ALIENS!

They couldn't even come up with a creative looking alien. It looked like the aliens Spielberg's "Taken", Spielberg's 20-hour exercises in futility. It looked like the alien from Close Encounter. It looked like the alien from Stargate. It looked like every boring, cliche alien you see in every crappy B-movie.

The ending was unsatisfied, several fairly important plot points were left unexplained, and the list goes on.

There's a thin line between suspension of disbelief (jumping out of a plane and sliding down a mountain on a life raft? Face-melting ghosts? 10-second mummification? Heck yes I'll buy that) and shoving pointless acts of impossibility down the audience's throat, and they bloody well crossed it.

First, I did enjoy watching the movie. Was it my favorite? No.. I actually didn't mind the alien stuff, as all of the other movies have some sort of supernatural storyline.. but it definitely had Lucas' "out there" fingerprints all over it! If he had stepped back and let others run the script more, it would definitely have better reviews. All of the Indiana Jones movies have that "you need to suspend logic" aspect to it, but I thought this one was a bit of a stretch.. especially with the sword fight on moving vehicles, and the waterfall scene! And frankly the prairie dogs weirded me out...

I agree with the very first post by CDX...it's a movie, and they did not sell out and made the movie they wanted to make. What makes me laugh is all these yahoos who have nothing else to do but sit on the internet all day, assuming they could make a better movie than George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. Some people also forget that the movie is made for everyone, not just these people who have nothing else to do but complain about a movie on message boards. The kids at my screening loved the monkeys and the ending. If you're waiting for them to make a film specifically tailored to you, no wonder you're disappointed. P.S. don't look now, but the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were fake too.

Well, it beats the last 3 Star Wars films hands down. I don't blame the director, it's definitely the script – Indy isn't about SciFi, it's about earthly (or metaphysical) adventure. That skull looked so out of place, it wasn't funny. There are real crystal skulls, but they don't look like tin foil stuffed inside a plastic shell. Ford still looks great, but I thought Marion looked old. There was one too many car chases (ho hum by the 3rd). Still, I think it was a better movie than Temple of Doom.

Lucas is poor at dialogue, character development, and plot. This was easily the worst of the 4. Ya know, after years of turned down scripts, I think Lucas finally got Spielberg and Ford to give in and do a movie. The chase scenes had too much CG and did not compare to the Raiders or Crusade chase scenes. The "bug" scene had too much CG and did not compare to snakes, bugs, or rats of the previous three. The CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT and DIALOGUE were not up to snuff, and that is what made the other 3 work, not special effects and computer graphics.

Hey, I am a huge fan of Spielberg and I know movies. This movie was very disappointing. Maybe Lucas and Spielberg wanted to target 13 year old's. If that is the case, they found their audience. I have always admired Spielberg's flare for the dramatic. He was an innovator in direction and camera work. However, I feel that the audience is too sophisticated these days for that to work. Michael Bay can still pull it off. Maybe his youth keeps him in tune with today's audience.

I think the story line could have worked. However, the script was terrible and the movie did not have the magic. It's a shame that it will still make a ton of money. People will see it just to see it.

The movie was exactly what it should have been, and was great. What are people expecting? The movie to end all movies?

The jump to the 50's was done from the start with the hot rod, and continued through in great fashion. It had ALL the humor Indiana Jones has always had, nothing more, nothing less. It had creative humor about the 50's, with the 30's serial action hero in a time a little different than his war hero days.

The plot was perfect for Indiana Jones, an archeologist studying 'fact'. Here he deals with something beyond anything he's come across, and for the character, it's quite interesting.

My whole family loved it, my mom, my wife, my sisters and brother (and he's the hardest to please of all) I bet some people are just impossible to please, but at least keep your animosity to yourselves. At a BBQ yesterday, a bunch of people saw it, liked it, others wanted to hear about it since they wanted to go, but only 1 person belligerently hated it and refused to recommend it. Obviously the overall review is an approving and excited one from the majority of movie-goers.

Indy's back. Thank you, Harrison, Steven, George and everyone else. This one rates pretty high on my list – I'd order them 3, 4, 1, 2. It was fun and funny, just like Indy movies are supposed to be. The last scene with the hat is just about my favorite right now. That'll change repeatedly over time depending on my mood. The 98% full theater I was in erupted in spontaneous applause at the end. I haven't seen that happen in a long time.

"What other director could pull off the opening game of chicken with such effortless suspense — and over the credit sequence, yet? Who else could handle that nuclear ghost town sequence with such wit?"

Um: James Cameron, Sam Raimi, Ridley Scott, Jon Favreau (just did this last week!), Robert Zemeckis....come on DUDE!

What a stupid comment!

The latest Indy is a lame mishmash of bad writing, bad cgi and poor editing. Spielberg has lost it.

As a long time Indiana Jones fan I was anxious to see the new film. To say I was disappointed is an understatement, but heck, I’m being polite. Historically, the team of Lucas and Spielberg skated the line in their action sequences in terms of believability. In the new film the line is blurred and they are so far over the top a ten year old would find it unbelievable. For example: Jeeps in the jungle moving at high rates of speed actually would be hard to stand on due to bumps and vibrations – not a problem in this film. Obviously, neither is nuclear fall out and the fact that refrigerator doors never remain closed if you drop them from a third floor window with food in them.

In the man himself, Henry “Indiana” Jones, you catch few glimmers of the old Indie, though he’s still appealing for a cantankerous older man.

I think the biggest problem is you never get emotionally invested in the Mutt Williams character and hence you never feel emotionally invested in the movie. I’m a huge Shia Leboef fan but you never really catch a glimmer of the mischievous twinkle you see in his eyes in other flicks. His character was flat and in many ways undefined.

Marian was brought back, yet her lines were few and the old Marian was not only gone, but replaced by a mindless idiot with stars in her eyes. The intelligent Marian was gone, yet she was the source for the original girl power!

Cate Blanchet went between flat and flatter, but that was more of a dialogue thing than anything. Her saving grace was how striking she was on screen with dark hair which made her blue eyes pop.

John Hurt was BRILLIANT! The one saving grace of this film. I’ve never seen a performance by him where he didn’t steal every scene he was in.

Unfortunately, the movie was predictable to the point of boring. Couple that with the feeling that they didn’t do their research adequately to tackle the topic of Crystal Skulls, Mayans, and Nasca, so anyone who’s watched the History or Discovery Channels in the past few years will be sorely disappointed. Between Spielbergs fixation with UFO’s and Lucas’s fixation with corny endings, you end up with a film without chemistry between the cast which leads to a lack of an emotional investment in their well-being. And this, more than anything saddens me. I’ve seen ET, Star Wars (all), and all the Indiana Jones literally dozens of times – I adore them. This movie saddened me because I know they could have done better.

I thought the movie was horrible. The monkey chase scene and the scene where the duck drives out on the tree is ridiculous. I know these movies have over-the-top scenes, but come on. The overall idea was good, but the whole script seemed thrown together too quick. I love George Lucas but I think this is his worst work.

I like the movie – Let's remember that Raiders was awesome and the subsequent Indiana Jones were more action-comedy than serious. If you compare Indiana Jones movies to other Indiana Jones movies, you have to agree that this one was fun, fast moving and nostalgic. I'd recommend that Indiana Jones fans go see the movie and those who are disappointed with the other Indiana Jones movies don't go see it.

I enjoyed the first half. The second half loses its way. The underlying message is education and knowledge is the true power instead of gold and other treasure. And they manage to even deviate from that theme by not revealing the academic future of Shia's character.

When there's usually a love it or hate it movie like Cloverfield, 300, Blair Witch, Donnie Darko, Kill Bill vol. 2, Munich, Sky Captain, etc. I'm usually on the "like it" side of the argument.

Unfortunately for this movie, for the first time, I'm part of the "not like it" side. National Treasure Book of Secrets was a fun but not at all a great movie, but it was way better than this movie, which share so much similarity within its second half (but executed much worse).

I think you are all crazy, because it was one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. At the end of the movie the entire audience applauded, how often does that happen????? Everyone needs to calm down, it's a movie, it's suppost to be fun, Quit dragging it down.

The film definitely ranks as the fourth. Spielberg did a good job of capturing the nuances and flavor of Indy. But the sometimes ridiculous sequences (the monkeys and vines, going over three waterfalls???) just felt like an excuse to use (crappy) CGI where there really shouldn't have been any at all. They used miniatures and models for the mine cart sequence in Temple of Doom, and although also a bit far-fetched, it was a hell of a lot more tangible.
Lucas definitely has his stink on this one, as there was a script ten years ago that everyone but he liked. The treasure in question doesn't have any weight to it either. Crystal Skull? Wanh-Wanh-Waaaanh. Spielberg and Ford really should have stood up to the gobble-necked shlock-peddling tyrant Lucas has become..
Watchable, mostly enjoyable, NOT what I've been waiting twenty years for.
Thanks.

I think George Lucas is the reason it took 19 years to finally get another Indiana Jones film. From everything I've read he pushed and pushed and pushed the alien theme until Spielberg & Ford finally talked him into a compromise that he would go along with. That aside, I'll have to say I LOVED the direction of Spielberg in this film and Harrison is timeless. (I wish people would stop looking at the numbers (65) and look at the man. Harrison IS Indiana Jones. )

The 50s WERE about the fear of Commies, UFOs, and the Cold War. (Here, in America, people were 'blacklisted' if they were thought to be a member of the Communist Party.) The flavor of the first three Indy films is every bit here in the 4th...it was well worth the 19 year wait. I'm a very satisfied Indiana Jones fan.

What a let down... I mean aliens? If this movie had not been done by Lucas and Spielberg we would be discussing about another Snakes on the plane or anaconda... both at the same level as this Indiana Jones in my opinion

I enjoyed the movie but it wasn't the best in the series. I liked the alien stuff, not sure why people object to that. What did bother me was that many of the scenes were rehashes of early Indiana films and some of the acting seemed stiff and tired. Maybe that was the fault of the writing but maybe there should have been more focus on Junior. My kids call this movie 'Geriatric Indie.'

It was not good. The monkeys (why didn't they just Shia yell like Tarzan?), the groundhogs (or whatever they were), the scorpions and ants being CGI'd. Not an Indy movie! The story was disjointed, the characters (all of the characters) were not developed and I am sorry, aliens!!!!!! Ugh! Horrible script writing, horrible editing. The actors unfortunately could not shine because, there was nothing for them to do but stand and looked stunned. Please, no more!

I couldnt have said it better -> "In the first one we allowed our selves to believe dust in a golden ark can melt faces. In the second one, magic stones could restore life to a village, and in the third that a man could live 1000 years with the power of the Grail. So is it that much of a strecth to belive Aliens helped build the pyramids. The problem with people who spur and criticise, is they’ve forgotten they’re not kids anymore. These movies can’t capture their imagination the way they could 20, 30 years ago. I checked my brain at the door and enjoyed it. And my 10 years old loved it too much the way i did back in 1981 as a 10 year old. Stop the crustiness. Who knows maybe you won’t age so quickly and you might be able to crack a whip when you’re 65 too."

Aren't people forgetting that Indy is all about corny puns and chase scenes. Indiana Jones is an Action Hero – kinda like what you find in comic books. Who want's realism in their comic books? The movie was great – kind an inspiration simply because it showed that Indy, didn't just ride off into the sunset. He kept up at it because it was what he loved the travel, the excitement, and yes, even the teaching. This installation was important because it showed us, and Indy, that he was just a man, mistakes and all.
you also have to remember that Ford has a pretty clear head on his shoulders – the character is as much him as it is Lucas and Spielberg. If he put his stamp on it, then it tells me the film was true to its roots.

I was scared to go see the new Indy flick. I loved the first ones, even though they were before my time (The Last Crusade came out the year I was born) they are still great pictures. Of course we all have the little bit of "ugh" for Temple of Doom, but Harrison still rocks it.
I went to see "Kingdom" and I would give it a 3 out of 5. I agree that Lucas's idea was the alien, and who ever thought of the ending should be taken to the temple of Doom. And I hated the part with where Shia is swinging with monkeys...come on.
As much as I hated those things, i still got joy when i saw Harrison in action. Hes the reason I went to the movie. I love that he looks older, but at times in the movie he didn't look a day over 40 (which was around the age he was in the first movies).
Lots of funny parts (to many if you ask me) but lots of action. And at the end I wanted more, more, more, more. If anything this movie has re-started a great franchise. Sadly, with Harrison getting older, I cannot picture him doing many more. Thats the problem, I cannot picture ANYONE else in that role and I never want too. Shia as the new Indy?
Please no, please please please. No one else can play him and no one else should play him. End while your on top guys. Or make one more then Harrison 😉

Rank among the four – last. But who cares? It was fun! It was completely implausible. But really, were any of the other Indy movies plausible? Who cares if no one could really survive those three waterfalls. It sure was exhilarating to watch, and above all, FUN – which is one of the great reasons to go to the movies. And I laughed when the monkeys attacked! I laughed when Indy was escaping (and he was usually escaping something or other...) Thanks to all the people who made a movie I could take my kids to that wouldn't leave me depressed about human nature or the state of the world.... I get that every day when I go on CNN.com.....

I just saw the film last night. I thought it was good and very similar to the other Jones films. Some parts were confusing and so I would want to watch it again to catch all the details. All in all, it was a good solid film. The only thing that I would have changed was added more development of the characters. It started off well doing that at the beginning but then when the "Mom" came on the scene...they didn't develop her enough. I would have just added a couple more scenes with them talking, getting to know each other again. In the end, the "family" is the heart of the story so I think I would have had them interacting a bit more. I enjoyed the movie.

Hi. I think nothing compares to Raiders of the Lost Ark, it was original, it was Indy, it was just a new thing. Then the sequals came along, dragging it longer and longer and longer. The Last Crusade should've been the "last", but boys will always be boys, and the three boys wanted to do one last thrill all together.

Plus I hope they are smart enough to lay down Indiana Jones to rest, cause after 4 movies, the franchise has had enough. And if they really want to push the envelope and destory the franchise once and for all, get greedy and give Shia the lead role in any upcoming Indiana Jones movie. That should do it!

It was a fun 2 hours, but it was definitely no Raiders or Temple of Doom.

There was too much CG. The first two movies were created prior to the CG boom and I think it was a mistake not to creat this film using similar, old school techniques. It was surprising that Spielberg would stoop so low as to lie and say that there was a minimal amount of CG in this film when it made up a great part of the film.

Lastly, it is a miracle George lucas didn't put C-3PO and R2-D2 at the helm of the spaceship during that abysmal finale. I wouldn't have put it past him.

Two of the major set-pieces in this film were already done better in the Mummy series – I'm thinking of the killer ants sequence (evil beatles in Mummy Returns) and the destruction of the pyramid at the end of the film (destruction of pyramid at end of Mummy Returns.) Kind of ironic that Indiana Jones ends up pulling from the Mummy series which is after all a take-off of Indiana Jones in the first place. I agree the film's problems lie in the script and not in the direction...the other big issue of course is buying Indiana Jones vs. Aliens – this was hard for me to buy into.

I took my 14, 12, and 10 year old children to the movie. They loved it. The audience laughed at the jokes and gasped during the chase scenes. At the end, no one asked for their money back.

So I ask, What value is a review? Sequels are rarely cinematographic masterpieces, they are just another chapter in a story that we pretty much all agreed we like. The story was familiar enough to be Indy, but new enough to keep us engaged.

In the first one we allowed our selves to believe dust in a golden ark can melt faces. In the second one, magic stones could restore life to a village, and in the third that a man could live 1000 years with the power of the Grail. So is it that much of a strecth to belive Aliens helped build the pyramids. The problem with people who spur and criticise, is they've forgotten they're not kids anymore. These movies can't capture their imagination the way they could 20, 30 years ago. I checked my brain at the door and enjoyed it. And my 10 years old loved it too much the way i did back in 1981 as a 10 year old. Stop the crustiness. Who knows maybe you won't age so quickly and you might be able to crack a whip when you're 65 too.

I don't see why people have a problem with this movie at all...one of the best times i've had watching a movie in a long time.. People say the cgi looks bad...or its too unbeliveable.. Which one of the Indiana Jones movies was believable?...

my ranking goes 3,1,4,2. I thought the Last Crusade was by far the best, I also enjoyed the Raiders of the Lost Arc, Crystal Skull was okay but kind of weird with all the alien stuff. I absolutely hated and was creeped out by the temple of doom–eew!

This one ranks as the worst. My wife and I saw it a few days ago and about halfway during the movie, I was looking at my watch wondering when the end credits would roll. The characters were so disconnected and the plot was B-Movie material (at best) and it seems like the action sequences were shoved down our throats for 2 hours. I am actually surprised Ford decided to do this as he seems uninterested throughout the entire movie. I feel like we we duped out of $18 dollars. I didnt know if I was watching cut scenes from the Star Wars Prequels, Close Encounters, or X-Files!

I put the Crystal Skull in third place in comparison to the other Indiana Jones installments. Third place amongst four great movies is pretty decent placement. Crystal Skull is a masterpiece when you compare it to the typical fodder released by Hollywood any given week of the year....

Lucas and "the Steve" did what they wanted to do, and they obviously went with it. They didn't sell out. They did their magic in the way they love to do it, and if anyone is "booing" over it, fine...don't like it. Nobody is asking you to.

You can complain and complain and complain again, but it's just wasting time and effort to rage over a damn movie.